Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Sharad Kumar Sharma vs State Of on 5 October, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
Sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CLCON No.279 of 2023
With
CLCON No.280 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate, for
the applicant.
Mr. J.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the
respondent.
These are the two contempt petitions,
which arises out of the interim orders dated
26.07.2023, as passed in WPMS No.2076 of
2023, "Gulshan Bhanot and others Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others", and the interim order
dated 19.09.2023, as passed in WPMS No.2468
of 2023, "Darshna and others Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others".
In both these writ petitions, the petitioners
have put a challenge to the impugned order of
19.07.2023, as it was passed by the respondents,
intending to demolish the construction, which the
petitioners contend, that they are occupying. The
same was the intention of the order dated
19.07.2023, as put to challenge to the connected
writ petition referred to hereinabove.
It goes without saying, that once the
coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble High Court by
virtue of an interim order has stayed the effect
and operation of the order dated 19.07.2023, it
will be understood, that no demolition action
could be taken by the respondent on the basis of
the said impugned order. Even till date, it is not
the case of the petitioners in the contempt
petitions, that the demolition has taken place by
the respondents in violation of the interim orders,
and the said fact stands fortified by the
instructions, which has been received by the
counsel for the respondent from the respondents,
that according to the communication made by the
District Magistrate to the office of the Chief
Standing Counsel, vide its two Communications
No.1307, dated 05.10.2023 and 1308, dated
05.10.2023. It has specifically stated, that no
demolition action is being taken against the
petitioner after the orders being passed on
26.07.2023. Thus, there happens to be no
immediate apprehension or an apparent non
compliance of the interim orders passed on
26.07.2023.
Besides this, the controversy has to be
looked into from another prospective, that in both
these writ petitions, the respondents have already
put an appearance and they have filed their
counter affidavits.
In accordance with the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 1992
(4) SCC 167, "State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs.
Mohd. Yakub Khan and another", where it is
provided, that so long the stay matter in the writ
petition has not been finally disposed of, the
carrying of the contempt proceedings in itself is
misconceived and no orders, therein, should be
passed. It has been observed in paragraph nos.5
and 6, of the said judgment, that the scope of the
contempt proceeding is much different from that
of the pending main case, which is yet to be
heard on merits and to be disposed of in future.
In paragraph 6, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed, that the scope of the contempt is
different to that of the pending writ petitions,
where the main issue is yet to be decided on
merits, and at an interim stage, when the interim
order has been granted and the matter is being
contested after filing of the counter affidavit.
Until and unless, the interim matters is decided
finally by the coordinate Bench, no apparent
contempt should be made out, nor even it is the
case of the petitioners in the contempt petition
that in pursuance to the order dated 26.07.2023
and 19.09.2023, any act of demolition has taken
by the respondent, which was intended by the
impugned order dated 19.07.2023. Hence, there
happens to be no apparent contempt as such
made out against the respondent, for which they
could be summoned in the contempt petitions.
Hence, I don't find any merit in the
contempt petitions. The same are accordingly
dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
05.10.2023
NR
