Delhi High Court
D-Block Pandav Nagar Residents ... vs Amit Yadav And Ors on 13 October, 2015
Author: Manmohan
#39
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 805/2015
D-BLOCK PANDAV NAGAR RESIDENTS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.P. Mavi with Mr. B.P. Mishra,
Advocates
versus
AMIT YADAV AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Standing
Counsel for NDMC.
% Date of Decision : 13th October, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
CM APPL. 23404/2015
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CONT.CAS(C) 805/2015 & CM APPL. 23403/2015
1. Present writ petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the
order dated 6th October, 2010 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.(C) 782/2010 wherein the counsel for MCD had made a statement that
in view of the request of the residents, the park situated in the locality would
be delisted and would not be used for holding public functions. The said
statement of the counsel for MCD was accepted by the Court.
2. In a subsequent writ petition being W.P.(C) 6888/2011 filed by Sri
Adarsh Ram Lila Committee, another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 20th September, 2011 while disposing of the said writ petition
gave the petitioner therein right to approach the MCD for seeking review/
cancellation of the delisting orders passed by it.
3. In the order dated 20th September, 2011 it was further directed that as
and when MCD receives such a representation, the same shall be considered
in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
residents welfare association of the area, which was petitioner in W.P.(C)
782/2010 and at whose instance the park in question had been delisted.
4. The order dated 20th September, 2011 passed in W.P.(C) 6888/2011
was carried in appeal to the Division Bench by Sri Adarsh Ram Leela
Committee. However, the said appeal was dismissed as the Division Bench
did not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. Mr. K.P. Mavi, learned counsel for petitioner contends that
respondents' office order dated 8th October, 2015 allowing public functions
like Ram Leela in the locality park is in contravention of this Court's order
dated 6th April, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) 782/2010.
6. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, learned counsel for respondents, who appears
on advance notice, has produced the original file pertaining to the locality
park to show that Ram Leela has been held in the said park in 2011, 2012,
2013 and 2014. He also points out that the deponent of the affidavit
accompanying the present petition had given a No Objection
Certificate/Undertaking to the respondent-Corporation for holding the Ram
Leela. One such sample No Objection Certificate/Undertaking dated 24th
August, 2014 forwarded by the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE/UNDERTAKING
I, We, R.W.A. at D-Block, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092,
through its General Secretary Mrs./Miss. Renu Dhingra D/o.
Shri D.B. Khanna R/o D-49, Third Floor, D-Block, Pandav
Nagar, Delhi-110092, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:-
1. That Mr. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Ved Prakash (President)
have applied for booking of Park, located at RAMLEELA
PARK, D-BLOCK, PANDAV NAGAR, DELHI-110092, ID No.
P07082000177374, to hold Ramleela w.e.f. 23-09-2014 to 04-
10-2014.
2. That I/We have no objection if Ramleela Park is used for
Ramleela located at D-Block, Pandav Nagar, DELHI-110092,
purposes.
3. That the above statements are true and correct.
Sd/- (Renu Dhingra)
Deponent
Verification :-
Verified at Delhi on this 24th day of August, 2014, that the
contents of above undertaking are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Sd/- (Renu Dhingra)
Deponent"
7. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view
that the order dated 6th October, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) 782/2010 has to be
read harmoniously with the order dated 20th September, 2011 passed in
subsequent W.P.(C) 6888/2011 inasmuch as the subsequent order makes a
note of the earlier writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 782/2010 and the said
subsequent order has been upheld by the Division Bench.
8. This Court is of the view that petitioner cannot blow hot and cold at
the same time. After the order dated 6th October, 2010, petitioner has itself
granted no objection certificates/undertakings for holding Ram Leela in the
park in question.
9. Further, cause of action for filing the contempt petition is alleged
violation of the order dated 6th October, 2010 - which cause of action
certainly arose in 2011 when the first Ram Leela was held after the said
order.
10. Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes limitation for
actions for contempt. The said Section 20 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"20. Limitation for actions for contempt.-No court shall
initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion
or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the
date on which the contempt is alleged to have been
committed."
11. In view of the aforesaid, present contempt petition is clearly barred by
limitation.
12. This Court is further of the opinion that the present contempt petition
is an abuse of process of Court inasmuch as the petitioner having granted a
no objection certificates/undertakings for holding Ram Leela in the same
park for the past four years after the passing of the order dated 06th October,
2010, cannot now raise a grievance.
13. A Division Bench of this Court in ABW Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr.
Vs. Rail Land Development Authority, LPA 264/2010 decided on 06th July,
2010 has held that "...........As further conceded to, if the amount as agreed is
not deposited, it would tantamount that appellants have conceived the idea
that Court is a laboratory where children come to play." (emphasis
supplied).
14. Consequently, present writ petition and application are dismissed with
costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to New Delhi Bar Association Library Fund
within two weeks. Let a receipt of the payment of cost be deposited within
two weeks thereafter.
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 13, 2015
rn
