Delhi High Court
Saleem vs Jain (Ae) & Ors. on 5 May, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 5th May, 2015
+ CONT.CAS(C) 363/2015
SALEEM ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Hasibuddin, Advocate.
Versus
JAIN (AE) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Shubhra Parashar and
Mr.V.P.S.Charak, Advocates
for Respondent No.1/SDMC.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM No.8277/2015 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
CONT.CAS(C) 363/2015
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby to
initiate contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents for wilful violation of
orders dated 19.01.2015 and 02.02.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.
506/2015.
2. Vide order dated 19.01.2015, the aforementioned petition was
disposed of by this Court on the statement made by counsel for the
respondent/South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC), who appeared
on advance notice and on instructions, submitted that the unauthorized
construction qua properties bearing H. No. 23, Joga Bai Extension-II,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and H. No.161/A, Joga Bai, Jamia Nagar, New
Delhi, was booked on 13.01.2015 and the respondent No.1/SDMC was
in the process of taking necessary action in accordance with law.
3. Accordingly, the respondent Corporation was directed to ensure
the action by taking photographs of the premises in question on the said
date itself.
4. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with by the
respondent Corporation, the petitioner filed an application bearing CM
No.1663/2015.
5. While disposing of the same on 02.02.2015, this Court directed
the respondent Corporation to take action within a period of six weeks
from the said date. The respondent No.2/SHO, PS Jamia Nagar, was
also directed to provide necessary police assistance to enable the
respondent/Corporation to complete the action as warranted.
6. It is noted that thereafter the petitioner filed a petition bearing
Cont.CAS (C) No.157/2015 before this Court seeking compliance of the
aforesaid orders dated 19.01.2015 and 02.02.2015. Though the same
was pre-mature, while disposing of the same vide order dated
27.02.2015, this Court directed the respondent Corporation to carry out
the demolition on 03.03.2015 and 04.03.2015 by taking police
assistance from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-East
District, New Delhi, and comply the orders dated 19.01.2015 and
02.02.2015 in a time bound manner.
7. Ms.Shubhra, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent
No.1/SDMC on advance notice and submits that on 03.03.2015, the
demolition action was taken vide which large numbers of panels were
cut-down at the ground floor of property No.23A, Joga Bai, Jamia
Nagar, New Delhi. Thereafter, vide letter dated 13.03.2015, respondent
Corporation requested the SHO, PS Jamia Nagar, to keep watch and
ward of the property in question and also not to allow any unauthorized
construction in the same.
8. She further submits that vide letter dated 17.03.2015, the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, South East District, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi,
was requested to provide police assistance for the demolition action
fixed for 24.03.2015. However, on the said date the demolition was
postponed as the concerned SHO shown his inability to provide
adequate security for the reason whenever demolition action is carried
out in the said case, more than 100 persons gathered over there. Hence,
the respondents were unable to execute the directions passed by this
Court.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation also submits that
further demolition action qua the properties in question is to be carried
out on 08.05.2015 and 27.05.2015 for which police assistance has
already been requisitioned by the Corporation vide its letter dated
28.04.2015.
10. In view of the above noted facts, it is established that respondent
No.1/Corporation has taken all due care and passed necessary orders to
comply with the orders passed by this Court.
11. In such eventuality, proviso attached to Section 12 of the Act is
relevant, which reads as under:-
"Section 12:- Punishment for Contempt of
Court:-
PROVIDED that nothing contained in this sub-
section shall render any such person liable to such
punishment if he proves that the contempt was
committed without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent its
commission."
12. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Jiwani Kumari vs.
Satyabrata Chakraborty, AIR 1991 SC 326 held that a party (or person)
can be committed for contempt only owing to any willful or deliberate
or reckless disobedience of the order of the Court.
13. In view of the above discussion, settled law and the action being
taken by the respondents, it is established that in the present case, the
respondent has not committed any willful or deliberate disobedience of
the order or direction of this Court, therefore, I am not inclined to pass
any order against the respondent in this petition.
14. However, I hereby make it clear that on the aforenoted dates, i.e.,
08.05.2015 and 27.05.2015, respondent No.1/Corporation shall execute
the demolition action and the SHO of the concerned Police Station is
directed to provide adequate security to enable completion of the action
as warranted, failing which, concerned SHO shall be held liable for
Contempt of Court under the Act.
15. In view of the above observations, the instant petition is disposed
of.
16. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
MAY 05, 2015
sb
