Gujarat High Court
Bhaskarbhai Vallabhdas Joshi vs Shri Hareshkumar Kantilal Dave ... on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/MCA/1256/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1256 of 2018
==========================================================
BHASKARBHAI VALLABHDAS JOSHI
Versus
SHRI HARESHKUMAR KANTILAL DAVE PRESIDENT-CUM-
ADMINISTRATOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS SANGEETA N PAHWA(527) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 02/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)
1. This contempt proceeding has been initiated for willful and
deliberate breach of the order dated 5.10.2017 passed in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1080 of 2017, confirming the common judgment
dated 11.3.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.6519 of 2005
as well as the common judgment and order dated 29.11.2004 passed
by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.33 of
1992 and Appeal No.34 of 1992 and order dated 31.7.1992 passed by
Collector, Surendranagar in Case No.3/1988-89 and sought for a
direction to the opponent to purge in the contempt by removing the
illegal construction.
2. A direction is also sought to the respondent to comply with the
order dated 5.10.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal, Special Civil
Application, Gujarat Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the order passed
by the Collector.
3. We have heard Smt. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned counsel
appearing for the complainant and Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned
C/MCA/1256/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1. Perused the case papers.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the jurisdictional
Collector had passed an order on 31.7.1992, holding that construction
of six rooms and wall constructed by the contemner is without
permission and illegal and had directed the said construction to be
removed as it was contrary to the documents dated 20.2.1948 and
2.3.1948 It is the further contention of the complainant that
contemner's attempt to challenge the said orders in various forums,
namely before the Gujarat Revenue Appellate Tribunal, before learned
Single Judge and in the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division
Bench, having been unsuccessful, the original order of the Collector
has got merged with the final order passed by the Division Bench and
as such, order passed by the Collector, which has since merged with
the order in Letters Patent Appeal, the infraction of the order of the
Collector is to be viewed as disobedience of the order passed by the
Division Bench.
5. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that power of this Court
to punish the contemner for disobedience of the order of subordinate
Courts is traceable to Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A
plain reading of above provision would indicate that this Court will
exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance
with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of
courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of
contempts of itself. In another words, this Court can take cognizance
of the contempt alleged in respect of the orders which have been
passed by the subordinate Court. The expression "Court" is not
defined under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the expression,
'Civil Contempt' is defined, as and to mean and to include:
"(b) 'Civil contempt' means willful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
C/MCA/1256/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking
given to a Court."
Thus, the emphasis is on the expression "Court".
6. Here, in the instant case, the order which is alleged to have
been violated has been passed by the revisional authority and same
has got merged with the order passed by the Division Bench. Thus,
order which requires to be enforced is the order of the Collector. The
Collector would not fall within the four corners of the Court and as
such, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case where
this Court can clutch the jurisdiction to proceed with the present
contempt proceedings.
7. It is needless to state that order of the Collector having been
become final, the jurisdictional authorities, like the Municipality or
the municipal Corporation, will have to take such action in
accordance with law and we are making it explicitly clear that we are
not expressing any opinion in that regard and it is for the complainant
to pursue his grievance in the appropriate forum.
8. With these observations, present petition stands DISMISSED.
The contempt proceedings stand DROPPED. Notice is discharged.
(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
OMKAR
