The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jhuggi Jhopri Vikas Samiti, Netaji Nagar vs Suresh Kumar & Ors.consisting of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation, the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature.
Facts
This contempt petition was filed to initiate contempt proceedings and punish the Contemnors for violating the Order passed by this Court in as Ajay Maken& Ors v. Union of India & Ors., stating that the purported action of the Contemnors in demolishing the jhuggis of the slum dwellers of Netaji Nagar is contrary to the mandate of this judgment.In Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi this Court had also laid down directions regarding resettlement of jhuggi jhopri dwellers as per which a policy called the Delhi Slum Rehabilitation & Relocation Policy, 2015 (‘the DUSIB Policy’) was framed under which the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (‘DUSIB’) designated as the nodal agency for rehabilitation, relocation of jhuggi jhopribasti dwellers in respect of the lands belonging to the MCD and the Delhi Government, and its Departments/Agencies. In case of JJ Colonies existing such lands, the respective agency had to either carry out the relocation/rehabilitation themselves as per the policy of the Delhi Government or could entrust the job to the DUSIB.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: This Court’s view in Ajay Maken (supra) which interpreted the judgment of Sudama Singh (supra) is not the same case in the instant matter. Reliance was placed onVaishali (minor) (through next friend Mrs. Sita Devi) & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
Observations of the Court
The Bench relied on various cases regarding the concept of civil contempt and wilful disobedience, like Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. andJhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Gangulyto note that a contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out. Further, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences, non-compliance with the same cannot be held to be wilful disobedience of the order to make out a case of contempt entailing the serious consequence including imposition of punishment.
It was further noted if two interpretations are possible, a contempt proceeding will not be maintainable. So, relying on Vaishali (supra), where it was held that the judgment of AjayMaken (supra) would be applicable only to those clusters which have been notified by the DUSIB in its Policy, it was observed that the cluster in question was not a notified cluster.
Judgment
Thus, the Bench observed that the action of the Respondents in demolishing the Clusters was not violative of the Orders of this Court in AjayMaken (supra). Hence, the petition was dismissed.
Case:Jhuggi Jhopri Vikas Samiti, Netaji Nagar vs Suresh Kumar & Ors.
Citation: CONT.CAS(C) 404/2022 & CM APPLs. 18046-47/2022
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Decided on: 6th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
