Delhi High Court
Suman K Manhas vs Ranvir Singh , Commissioner, Edmc on 14 August, 2018
#1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2018
CONT.CAS(C) 291/2018
SUMAN K MANHAS ..... Petitioner
versus
RANVIR SINGH , COMMISSIONER, EDMC ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.L. Manhas, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajjay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CM APPL.32267/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
CONT.CAS.(C) 291/2018, CM APPL.32266/2018 (Directions) &
CM APPL.25957/2018 (Directions)
1. The present contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prays as follows:-
"In view of the above facts and circumstances, the
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to initiate
contempt of Court proceedings against the
respondent/contemnor for willfully disobeying and
defying its order dated 06.03.2018 passed in W.P.(C)
No.2083/2018 and/or pass any other appropriate order,
as deemed proper in the interest of justice, fairness and
enquiry, by awarding appropriate cost of this litigation
to the petitioner."
2. The contempt petition was predicated on the failure of the
Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, respondent herein, to
comply with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2018
in W.P.(C) 2083/2018, titled as 'Mrs. Suman K. Manhas vs. Commissioner,
EDMC and Others.'
3. It would be profitable to extract the directions, in order dated
06.03.2018, to appreciate the violation thereof, alleged in the present
proceedings. The same are extracted hereunder:-
" Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner limits the prayer in the present petition to a
direction to the concerned municipal corporation to
take appropriate action, in accordance with law, on his
complaint alleging unauthorized construction being
carried out by respondent No.4 in his flat.
Mr. Ajay Arora, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of EDMC states that on the complaint made by
the petitioner in this behalf, the municipal corporation
shall take all necessary steps to inspect the subject
property and thereafter take action, if warranted, in
accordance with law.
Directed accordingly.
The writ petition is disposed of with the
aforesaid directions. The pending applications also
stand disposed of."
4. A plain reading of the above directions clearly reflects that the East
Delhi Municipal Corporation had been directed to inspect the subject
property and thereafter take action, if warranted, in accordance with law.
5. A perusal of the status report filed, albeit belatedly on behalf of the
respondent, reflects that the construction existing in the subject property is
not unauthorized, and, therefore, no action in accordance with law, is
warranted.
6. In that view of the matter, no violation of the directions of this Court
by the EDMC is made out and resultantly, no further directions are required
to be passed in the present proceedings. The petition is accordingly disposed
of. The pending applications also stand disposed of.
7. The date already fixed i.e. 07.09.2018.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 14, 2018
dn
