Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Puri vs Shri Deepak Nandi on 16 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 3) [WCP-415/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 415/2021
Rajendra Puri
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Deepak Nandi
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. S. Kotwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi
Mr. Neel Kamal Singh, respondent
No.2 present in person
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
16/07/2021
1. On 28.05.2021, this Court had passed the following order :
"1. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners,
asserts that the impugned seizure order dated
26.05.2021 has been made without prior notice to the
petitioners. He argues that the same is in clear
contravention of the Circular dated 01.10.2015,
issued by none other than the Director, Local Self
Government itself.
2. While asserting that no fresh circular has been
issued after the Circular dated 01.10.2015, Mr.
Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners argues
that if the respondents were of the view that there is
any irregularity or the construction has been raised
without conversion and prior approval or otherwise
contrary to judgment of this Court rendered in the
case of Gulab Kothari, the Municipal Board was
required to at least give an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel argues that the petitioners have
simply constructed a godown in their agricultural land
(2 of 3) [WCP-415/2021]
and commercial activities are not being carried in
such premises.
4. While highlighting petitioners' predicament and
grievance, learned counsel submits that if the
impugned order dated 26.05.2021 is not stayed, it
will adversely affect the petitioners inasmuch as, their
agricultural produce lying in the shops (which are
being used as godown) will spoil or rot.
5. The matter requires consideration.
6. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also,
returnable within 8 weeks.
7. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated
26.05.2021 shall remain stayed.
8. It will be required of the respondent Chief
Executive Officer to forthwith lift the seizure of
petitioners construction."
2. The contemnor - respondent No.2 is present in person.
3. Mr. Punit Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the
contemnor, submits that the above direction for lifting the seizure
has been carried out by the contemnor and the seizure has now
been lifted on 08.07.2021.
4. He further submits that on receipt of the interim order dated
28.05.2021, the respondents moved an application (electronically
on 17.06.2021) under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India
for vacation of the interim order and made all endeavors for
getting the matter listed for consideration of the same.
5. Mr. C. S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that the respondent - contemnor has paid least regard to
the order dated 28.05.2021 passed by this Court. He points out
that though the order clearly recorded petitioners' contention that
the seized premises contain agriculture produce, which are likely
(3 of 3) [WCP-415/2021]
to rot or be spoiled yet he has not cared or paid any heed to the
petitioners' genuine request.
6. He submits with concern that the order came to be complied
with only on receipt of the notice of the present contempt petition.
7. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent, relies upon
judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Bindheshwari
Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Sri Sanjay Mohan & 4 Ors reported in (2011)
73 ACC 561 and submits that unless the application under Article
226 (3) of the Constitution of India is decided, the respondents -
contemnors cannot be held guilty of contempt of Court.
8. This Court expresses its concern and displeasure towards the
approach of contemnor - respondent, who despite being aware of
the directions passed by this Court, has remained totally
nonchalant rather negligent towards it and has not complied with
the same.
9. That apart, though a reply to the contempt petition has been
filed but the same does not even contain formal expression of
apology or remorse for the delay in carrying out the direction.
10. This Court finds a prima facie case of willful disobedience of
the order passed by this Court.
11. Be that as it may. Since an application under Article 226 (3)
of the Constitution of India filed by the respondents is coming up
for consideration on 23.07.2021, the matter is adjourned to
06.08.2021.
12. Needless to observe that the contemnor shall be required to
remain present on the next date of hearing.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
61-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
