Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balmkund Agrawal vs L.K. Tirpathi on 16 August, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 302 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
B.M. AGRAWAL S/O SHRI BANWARI LAL AGRAWA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
MAN C/O SHANTI GRIH UDYOG, SHANTI NAKA,
GARHA, JABALPUR DISTRICT - JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL LALA - ADVOCATE )
AND
L.K. TRIPATHI S/O SHRI L.M. TRIPATHI
OCCUPATION: PRESIDENT BABA SAHAB
AMBEDKAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY R/O 1367
BHANTALAIYA IN FRONT OF POLICE CHOWKI
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI UMESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 324 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
BALMKUND AGRAWAL S/O SHRI BANWARI LAL
AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS C/O SHANTI GRIH UDYOG, SHANTI NAKA,
2
GARHA, JABALPUR DISTRICT - JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL LALA - ADVOCATE)
AND
L.K. TRIPATHI S/O SHRI L.M.TRIPATHI PRESIDENT
BABA SAHAB AMBEDKAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
1367 BHANTALAIYA IN FRONT OF POLICE CHOWKI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI UMESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 05.07.2023
Pronounced on : 16.08.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These petitions having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Mishra
passed the following:
ORDER
Contempt Petition No.302 of 2021 and Contempt Petition No.324
of 2021 are arising out of a common order passed in W.P. No.8979 of
2010 and W.P. No. 8981 of 2010 on 16.12.2013. Therefore, they are
taken up for consideration together analogously and are being decided by
this common order.
2. Petitioners being brothers have filed these contempt petitions
against non-compliance of the order dated 16.12.2013 passed in W.P.
No.8979 of 2010 and W.P. No.8981 of 2010, whereby the Division
Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the writ petitions with a specific
direction to the respondent/Society to either allot alternate plot of the
same specification and measurement in any scheme available with the
Society or else value of the plot based upon the market value, as is
existing today, shall be paid to the petitioners within three months.
3. After passing of the order, when the compliance was not effected,
the petitioners preferred Conc. No.210 of 2018 and Conc. No.211 of
2018, wherein vide order dated 13.11.2019 it was observed that allotment
letters have been issued on 07.11.2019 but the orders passed by this Court
have not been complied with in letter and spirit, therefore, respondent
was asked to appear before the Court on 19.11.2019 to explain why he
should not be punished for non-compliance of the order passed by the
Court. On 19.11.2019, the respondent appeared before the Court and
submitted that allotment letters dated 07.11.2019 have been issued and
the petitioners have been allotted alternative plots No.175 and 176
admeasuring 40x60=2400 sq.ft. each situated at Complex No.2, Shanti
Nagar, Jabalpur. On the submissions of the respondent, the contempt
proceedings were dropped, but even after the allotment of plots to the
petitioners, no document was executed by the respondent transferring the
land in the name of petitioners. They continuously visited the contemnor
for execution of sale deed in pursuance to the allotment letters, but of no
consequence. Therefore, virtually the orders passed by this Court have
not been complied with. Therefore, present second contempt petitions are
filed.
4. On notice being issued, the respondent marked his presence and
submitted his reply. It is contended that in pursuance to the orders passed
by this Court, the alternative allotment has been made to the petitioners.
The petitioners have not come forward with the relevant documents to
enable the authorities to execute the sale deed. Another application being
I.A. No.2707/2022 was filed questioning the maintainability of present
contempt petitions on the ground that on earlier occasion, contempt
proceedings in Conc. No.210 and Conc. No.211 of 2018 were dropped.
Another application for taking documents on record has been filed
reiterating the earlier submissions made in the reply. It was pointed out
that the petitioners are not appearing in the society and making
complaints to one or the other authority. Another application for taking
documents on record has been filed on 19.01.2023 reiterating the
submissions made in the reply. It is submitted that as there is allotment of
plots being made in favour of petitioners, nothing survives for
consideration in the contempt petition. There cannot be said to be any
willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court as there was no
direction for execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Placing
reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Manjula Choudhary Vs.
Priyanka Chouhan, (2015) 4 M.P.L.J. 704, learned counsel prays for
dropping the contempt proceedings against the respondent. He has further
tendered his unconditional apology for the delay being caused in filing
the response or bringing documents on record.
5. The record indicates that the case is having the chequered history.
The Division Bench of this Court while disposing off both the writ
petitions vide common order dated 16.12.2018 has observed that the
petitioners are more than 70 years of age and are senior citizens,
therefore, the matter was taken up for final hearing in motion stage. It
was observed that despite SPC being issued, nobody is appearing on
behalf of respondent. The petitioners being brothers have applied for
allotment of the plots in the society. They were issued allotment letters of
plot Nos.179 and 180 admeasuring 40x60=2400 sq.ft. each. Their
allotment letters were cancelled on the ground the required installments
were not paid by them. They refuted the position by raising a dispute
under Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Society Act before the Deputy
Registrar who vide order dated 15.09.1994 arrived at a conclusion that
cancellation of allotment was done without providing any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners and the same was found to be illegal. An appeal
was preferred by the Society under Section 77 of the M.P. Cooperative
Society Act before the Joint Registrar. The same was dismissed vide
order dated 24.02.1995 upholding the observations made vide order dated
15.09.1994. The Second Appeal was preferred before the Board of
Revenue at the instance of respondent/Society which was allowed on
29.09.1998. The petitioner challenged the same by filing Writ Petition
No.1047 of 1999 and this Court vide order dated 14.02.2006 arrived at a
conclusion that the concurrent orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and
Joint Registrar have wrongly been interfered with by the Board of
Revenue without adverting to the consideration on merits of the matter.
Accordingly, the same was remanded back to the Board of Revenue. In
the meanwhile, due to the amendment in Constitution of the M.P.
Cooperative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to the M.P. State
Cooperative Tribunal. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the
petitioner on 10.07.2009. The same was put to challenge by filing two
writ petitions being W.P. No.8979 of 2010 and W.P. No.8981 of 2010,
which were heard analogously and disposed off by a common order dated
16.12.2013. The Division Bench while allowing the writ petitions has
observed as under:-
"It is directed that the respondent/Society shall either allot
alternate plot of the same specification and measurement in
any of the scheme available with the Society or else value of
the plot based on the market value as is existing today shall be
paid to the petitioners within a period of three months.
With the aforesaid, both the petitions stand allowed and
disposed of."
6. After the orders passed in the writ petitions, the letters of allotment
were issued in favour of petitioners on 07.11.2019 allotting plots Nos.175
and 176 admeasuring 40x60=2400 sq.ft. each to the respective petitioners
in W.P. No.8979 of 2010 and W.P. No.8981 of 2010. After the allotment
orders, the sale deed was not executed. They preferred two separate
contempt petitions being Conc. No.210 of 2018 and Conc. No.211 of
2018. The same were disposed off vide order dated 19.11.2019 observing
that as there is no willful disobedience as the allotment orders have been
issued in favour of the petitioners, but the fact remains that merely by
issuance of allotment orders, no rights to the property in question are
being crystallized in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have
already issued several notices asking for execution of sale deed but the
same has not been done till date.
7. During pendency of the present contempt petitions, several
applications have been filed to demonstrate that the compliance has been
made effective.
8. A specific argument is raised by petitioners that although allotment
letters were issued in their favour in the year November, 2019, but till
date the site is not being identified to them nor the sale deeds are being
executed despite the fact that they are repeatedly approaching the
respondent and asking for execution of sale deed. This Court vide order
dated 16.03.2022 had directed the respondent/contemnor to identify the
site which have been allotted to petitioners in their presence. On
23.03.2022, it was observed that the site of which allotment was made to
the petitioners, does not belong to the accused at all, therefore, virtually
there is no allotment of any site to the petitioners. Therefore, this Court
was of the view to frame charges against the accused. This goes to show
that the allotment letters are false and fabricated and are being filed in the
Court just to get rid of contempt proceedings. Thereafter several
opportunities were granted to respondent/contemnor and the matter was
adjourned. Even after passing of the order for framing of charges, ample
opportunities were granted to the respondent, but of no consequence.
Therefore, vide order dated 27.01.2023, charges were framed against the
respondent/contemnor. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard on
03.04.2023. Upto that time also, respondent/contemnor had not complied
with the order passed by this Court.
9. No document is placed on record by the respondent/contemnor to
show that allotment of plots vide allotment letter dated 07.11.2019 was of
the ownership of the society. Admittedly, the respondent/contemnor is the
member of the society and holding the post of the President of the
Society. After passing of the order on 03.04.2023, further time was
granted to enable him to comply with the orders, but no efforts were
made by the respondent/contemnor to comply with the order, therefore,
vide order dated 15.05.2023, this Court arrived at a conclusion that he has
willfully and deliberately not complied with the orders passed by this
Court and he was held guilty of willful disobedience of the Court order in
terms of Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He was asked
to be heard on the question of sentence on 05.07.2023. The respondent
appeared before the Court on 05.07.2023, but till date there is no actual
allotment of plots to the petitioners and no other applications have been
filed by him to show that he is actually willing to comply with the orders.
10. It is not disputed that the respondent is holding the post of the
President of the Society. The allotment order was issued in favour of the
petitioners informing regarding allotment of plot Nos.175 and 176. The
same was placed before this Court and Conc No.210 of 2018 and Conc
No.211 of 2018 were disposed off in terms of document presented before
the Court. But, subsequently it was found that no such plot as shown is of
the ownership of the respondent, therefore, there was no question of
allotment in favour of the petitioners. Presenting a false and fabricated
document before the Court and getting the contempt petitions disposed
off in view of the undertaking regarding execution of the sale deed in
pursuance to the allotment orders comes within the purview of civil
contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinderjit Singh Bitte v. Union of
India, (2011) 11 SCALE 634 has considered the aforesaid aspect and has
held as under:
"Civil contempt would be willful breach of an undertaking
given to the court or willful disobedience of any judgment or
order of the court, while criminal contempt would deal with
the cases whereby the words, spoken or written, signs or any
other matter or doing of any act which scandalises, prejudices
or interferes, obstructs or even tends to obstruct the due
course of any judicial proceedings of any court and the
administration of justice in any other manner."
11. Despite providing ample opportunities to the respondent to comply
with the order passed in the writ petitions, neither the amount at the
market price has been paid in lieu of the plots nor the fresh allotment of
any plot is made in favour of the petitioners. Although he was held guilty
of willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on earlier
occasion, but today also he is heard on the entire matter but there is no
positive answer from the respondent/contemnor. The overall facts and
circumstance of the case clearly reflect that there is a deliberate and
willful disobedience on the part of the respondent in not complying with
the order passed by this Court coupled with misrepresentation of placing
the wrong allotment order before the Court in the earlier proceedings just
to get earlier contempt proceedings dropped. Under these circumstances,
we do not have any hesitation to hold that the respondent is guilty of not
complying with the order passed by this Court in terms of the Contempt
of Courts Act.
12. Under these circumstances, once the Court has already held the
respondent guilty in terms of Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 vide order dated 15.05.2023 and in the absence of any application
for recalling that order and also the fact that there are no efforts being
shown by him to comply with the orders passed by this Court, this Court
is left with no other option except to punish him in terms of provisions of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
13. Respondent is heard on the quantum of punishment.
14. The accused pleads innocence. On sentence, Shri Umesh
Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that the
accused is an advocate and, therefore, no sentence can be imposed on an
advocate. We are unable to accept such a submission. We have already
recorded a finding to the effect that he is guilty of having committed a
civil contempt as defined under Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. The respondent/accused is presently holding the post of
President in the Society. He appeared before the Court on several
occasions. He filed several applications before this Court to demonstrate
that virtually he is making efforts to comply with the orders passed by
this Court. When he was asked to identify the site which have been
allotted by the society to the petitioner vide order dated 07.11.2019, but
the site could not be identified. It appears that wrong order of allotment
was placed before the Court in the earlier round of contempt proceedings
just to get the contempt proceedings dropped which virtually amounts to
misleading the Court. Actually, there is no allotment of any of the plots to
the petitioners in pursuance to the directions given by this Court in earlier
round of litigation vide order dated 16.12.2013. Today also, when he was
specifically asked that whether he wants to comply with the directions
passed by the Court, there was no response by him. The order in the writ
petition was passed way back in 2013 but till date there is no compliance.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order :
(i) The respondent/contemnor is held guilty of having committed
a civil contempt as defined under Section 2 (a) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(ii) He is imposed a punishment of simple imprisonment for a
period of one month and a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two
Thousand) to be deposited with the Registry of this Court
within a period of 15 days from today and in default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of 15 days.
16. Accordingly, the proceedings of the civil contempt are disposed
off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Sateesh
Digitally signed by SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Date: 2023.08.18 11:25:36 +05'30'
