CLCON/157/2020
2022 Latest Caselaw 524 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL
         ON THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                         BEFORE:
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ K. TIWARI
      Contempt Petition No. 157 of 2020
BETWEEN:

M/s National Book House                  ... Petitioner

      (By Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate)

AND:

Dr. Ashish Srivastava & another          ... Opposite Parties

      (By Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate)

                       JUDGMENT

1. Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 17.12.2018; petitioner was asked to vacate the shop on or before 31.01.2019 and he was also directed to pay the entire arrears of rent by 15.01.2019. However, it was provided in the order that if petitioner makes a request for allotment of an alternate shop, then the same shall be considered by the Competent Authority, as per law.

2. In this contempt petition, it is alleged that despite the order passed by Writ Court, alternate shop has not been allotted to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, however, submits that petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of ₹24,31,440/-

towards cost of the shop vide letter dated 24.12.2020, but petitioner neither gave his consent nor deposited the amount, therefore, shop could not be allotted to him.

4. Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that shop was to be allotted to the petitioner upon deposit of a sum of ₹55,688/-, therefore, M.D.D.A. was not justified in demanding ₹24,31,440/-, as cost of the shop from the petitioner.

5. The observation made by Division Bench in that judgment was that petitioner's request for allotment of shop shall be considered and the amount payable as cost of the shop is not indicated in the judgment. Whether petitioner is entitled to get a shop upon payment of ₹55,688/-, based on a Government Order issued on 21.03.2013 or whether the shop has to be allotted upon payment of the amount mentioned by M.D.D.A. in its letter, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in a contempt petition.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a case of willful disobedience of the order passed by Writ Court.

7. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. Notices issued to the opposite parties are hereby discharged. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for rerdressal of his grievance, if any.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Aswal