Allahabad High Court
Jogdish Kumar vs Shiv Narayan Tiwari, Lekhpal And 7 ... on 23 November, 2020
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3571 of 2020 Applicant :- Jogdish Kumar Opposite Party :- Shiv Narayan Tiwari, Lekhpal And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj,Satish Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. The present contempt application has been filed seeking action for contempt alleged to have committed on non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 namely Shiv Narayan Tiwari, Revenue Lekhpal, and Vijay Kant Tripathi, Consolidation Lekhpal.
2. The contempt alleged is to the order dated 18.3.2020 passed in Writ - C No. 7014 of 2020 (Darpan Sahu Vs. State of U.P & 3 Ors.). By that order, purely on account of the extreme circumstances then prevailing from the spread of pandemic Covid-19, division bench of this Court had issued a following directions in rem-
"10. Accordingly in our considered opinion all the concerned competent authorities both administrative and non-administrative under the State Government be issued directions restraining them from taking any coercive measures against any person or body of persons in the society so as to force him/them to approach the Court for the redressal of grievance and accordingly we issue following directions:
a. All the recovery proceedings at the end of the district administration, financial institutions and other administrative bodies/authorities/agencies and otherwise at the end of the instrumentalities of the State shall be deferred for a period of two weeks i.e. till 6.4.2020.
b. All the auction proceedings, if any pending or initiated in the meanwhile, shall remain deferred for a period of two weeks i.e. till 6.4.2020.
c. The District Magistrates and the Administrative Authorities are also restrained from issuing any directions for presence of any person or persons in connection with any pending or any other proceeding for a period of two weeks i.e. till 6.4.2020.
d. No demolition exercise shall be carried out at the instance of District Administration or any authorities under the State Government/local bodies for a period of two weeks i.e. till 6.4.2020.
e. No eviction or dispossession exercise against anyone be undertaken for a period of two weeks i.e. till 6.4.2020.
11. Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the Registrar General today itself who shall forward the same to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh immediately to ensure its compliance by issuing necessary directions/circulars to all the concerned authorities in the matter throughout the State within 48 hours."
3. It is the case of the applicant that the said order was extended from time to time and was definitely in operation on 14.7.2020 when the above named non-applicants are alleged to have demolished the boundary of arazi/gata no. 559, forcibly. In connection with that occurrence, it has been further submitted that no notice or other proceeding was initiated by the said non-applicants before carrying out the contemptuous act of demolition.
4. A civil contempt may lie only from the event of the specific willful disobedience by the contemnor. In the context of the proceedings which are between the court and the contemnor, before any inference of willful disobedience is drawn, it must be clear to the Court, at the very beginning, that the order of which the contempt has been alleged, had been served on the alleged contemnor and that despite knowledge of the same, the said contemnor chose to act in a manner as may be alleged to be in willful defiance of the specific direction or order issued by the Court.
5. At present, there is no material to establish that the non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 had been served a copy of the order dated 18.3.2020 on any date prior to 14.7.2020. The fact that the order had been required to be communicated to all concerned by the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh does not give rise to a presumption that the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh would have or had communicated the order of this Court, to the non-applicants before the offending action took place. It may also be noted that the complete lockdown got over on 31.5.2020 and since then various stages of opening up have remained in force and are continuing.
6. Accordingly, the present contempt application is rejected, leaving it open to the applicant to seek all other remedies as may be available in law against the demolition of his boundary wall.
Order Date :- 23.11.2020 Prakhar