Madras High Court
Joseph Lourdes Lawrence And Dominique ... vs Khairwal, Chief Secretary Government ... on 25 March, 2008
Author: M. Jaichandren
Bench: M. Jaichandren
ORDER M. Jaichandren, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties concerned.
2. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 10.2.2005, in W.P.M.P. No. 3375 of 2005, in W.P. No. 11541 of 2004, dated 10.2.2005.
3. It is submitted that a writ petition in W.P. No. 11541 of 2004, had been filed before this Court on behalf of the petitioners challenging the impugned order No. 289/Special Cell/ADM/2004, dated 27.1.2004.
4. The writ petition had been admitted by this Court, on 27.4.2004. During the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent, through his men, had attempted to lay a road in the land belonging to the petitioners, on 10.1.2005. Therefore, the petitioners had been constrained to file a writ miscellaneous petition in W.P.M.P. No. 3375 of 2005 in W.P. No. 11541 of 2004, praying for an order of injunction restraining the first respondent and his men from trespassing into the lands belonging to the petitioners and laying a cement road or dealing with the same in any manner till the disposal of the writ petition.
5. It has been further stated that when the writ miscellaneous petition W.P.M.P. No. 3375 of 2005, in W.P. No. 11541 of 2004, was taken up for hearing, on 10.2.2005, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had brought to the notice of this Court paragraph 5 of the impugned order, dated 27.4.2004, wherein it is stated that the Government had dropped the entire proposal to lay a road on the lands belonging to the petitioners.
6. Based on the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court had passed an order as follows:
5. Learned Government counsel for Pondicherry represents that in the impugned order itself it was stated that the Block Development Office had pre-closed the proposed work of laying road on the petitioners' land and the entire proposal has been dropped and reiterated the same in his oral arguments.
6. There seems to be apprehension in the minds of the petitioners and it cannot be said that there is no basis for the same and having regard to the facts and circumstances, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for till the disposal of the writ petition.
7. It has been further stated by the petitioners that in spite of the orders passed by this Court, the first respondent, through his men, had trespassed into the lands belonging to the petitioners on the night of 24th and 25th of March, 2005 and completed the laying of the road on 26th of March 2005.
8. It has also been stated that the first respondent is the sanctioning authority for laying of roads and the second respondent is the approving authority for the same and the third respondent is the work allotting authority for laying of roads in Pondicherry. The road was laid in the petitioners' land as a part of the contract work granted for laying of road in the adjacent area, namely, Kathirgamam, Ananda Nagar. In spite of the order of interim injunction granted by this Court, the respondents have laid the road defeating the rights of the petitioner, who is a handicapped senior citizen with 80% disability. Thus, the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court, on 10.2.2005, committing contempt of Court.
9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, he has tendered his unconditional apology in the event this Court finds that the respondent had committed contempt of Court by any act or omission.
10. It has been further submitted that poor residents of Thattanchavadi colony in R.S. No. 228/9 pt. 10pt. & 11 pt. had requested the District Rural Development Agency to provide Toilet facilities and concrete pavement in the locality under MPLAD Scheme. Based on the said request, tenders were called for and work order was placed with the Contractor D.Pachaiyappan, on 7.12.1999. During the last week of January, 2000, the Contractor had started earth filling. While so, the petitioners had claimed that the lands in R.S. No. 228/10, 11 were belonging to them. Pursuant to the claims made by the petitioners, the works started earlier were pre-closed and the earnest money deposit had been refunded to the Contractor. The Public Works Department has not laid any road in the private land bearing R.S.Nos.228/10 and 228/11 in Thattanchavadi village, before or after the issuing of orders by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 3375 of 2005 in W.P. No. 11541 of 2004.
11. The Buildings & Roads (Central) Division of Public Works Department is in-charge of carrying out road works in Thattanchavadi village of Pondicherry only in respect of the roads belonging to the Public Works Department. The Executive Engineer of the said division had categorically stated that they have not laid any road in the private land bearing R.S.Nos.228/10 and 228/11, Cadaster No. 1736 pt. situated in Thattanchavadi village, before or after the orders were issued by this Court, as alleged by the petitioners.
12. It has also been submitted that Oulgaret Municipality in which the land in question is situated had also reiterated that they have not provided any road facilities till date on the petitioners' lands, since the road portion had not been handed over by the owner of the land to the Municipality.
13. It has also been submitted that on enquiry conducted by the Police, it was noticed that the residents of the locality had unanimously decided to lay some roads by mutual contributions by way of collecting donations through their madar sangam. The residents are possessing ration cards and their huts have been provided with water and electricity connection by the concerned authority. The Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Deputy Collector (Revenue)-North, Pondicherry, had inspected the land and had reported that there were 24 families residing in the said area for more than 20 years. The Slum Clearance Board, Pondicherry, had given identification certificates during the year 1997.
14. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had reiterated her contentions stating that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court, on 10.2.2005 in W.P.M.P. No. 3375 of 2005, in W.P. No. 11541 of 2004.
15. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had also stated that the first respondent has not only laid the road in question but had also gone to the extent of giving a new name "Puthu Theru Matha Koil Street" in the month of July, 2005.
16. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had also quoted Sections 37 and 43 of The Pondicherry Town and Country Planning Act, 1970, to show that no development or change of use of any land could be undertaken or carried out without following the procedures established therein. If any act is done in contravention of the provisions of the said Act, it was liable to be punished as provided thereunder. Even if it is accepted that the road in question was laid by the encroachers, penal action ought to have been initiated against them for contravention of the provisions and for disobeying the orders passed by this Court. Even though there was no mention about the existence of the road, during the hearing of the earlier writ petitions, in W.P. No. 4077 of 2000 and W.P. No. 7629 of 2001, it is for the first time such a claim is made in the counter affidavit filed in the above contempt petition.
17. While stating that the respondent had filed a false affidavit, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (1995 SCC (Cri) 608), wherein, it was held that filing of false affidavits was not only reprehensible and condemnable but also requires to be dealt with sternly. It was also held that belated apologies offered for such behaviour are not apologies of a truly repentant person. When they are made obviously with a view to escape from punishment such apologies cannot be accepted. As such action would only aggravate contumacious act and it would amount to a deliberate attempt to overreach the due process of law without compunction.
18. It was also contended that mere explanation offered by the respondent for the act amounting to contempt of Court would not absolve him of the liability as held by the Supreme Court.
19. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had also relied on the following decisions in support of her contentions.
1. , (State Of Karnataka v. Shreyas Papers (P) Ltd.,
2. , (Jayaraman, S., Chairman-CUM-M.D., N.L.C.LTD., v. K.Venkatesan, Secretary NLC ITI Apprentice Welfare Association)
3. (Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.)
4. , (State of Bihar and Ors. v. Rajendra Singh and Anr.)
5. . (State of Orissa v. Aswini Kumar Baliar Singh)
20. Relying on the above said decisions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had emphasised the point that this Court ought to take a serious view on the contumacious conduct of the respondents in order to preserve the dignity and authority of the Courts, as the rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society, and judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law.
21. Based on the said decisions, it was also pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that an order passed by the Court should be strictly obeyed and strictly complied with, both in letter and spirit. The correctness or otherwise of the order cannot be questioned by the respondent before this Court, at this stage. Unless the respondent is made to obey the orders passed by this Court, it would result in diluting the authority of this Court, especially, when the respondents are attempting to place before this Court distorted facts, which are incorrect.
22. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the authorities concerned have taken appropriate steps on the representations made on behalf of the petitioners and it has been found that the dispute is between the petitioners and the alleged encroachers who are said to be in occupation of the petitioners' property and therefore, it is a matter to be resolved through the Courts of law by way of civil proceedings. The allegations made by the petitioners in the contempt petition are ill-founded and they cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law.
23. In view of the contentions raised by the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records placed before this Court, it is clear that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to substantiate the claims made by them to punish the respondents for contempt of Court. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have laid the road in the petitioners' property as alleged by the petitioners, nor is there anything to show that the respondents were responsible for laying the road as claimed by the petitioners.
24. On the other hand, it is seen that the respondents and the other authorities concerned have taken sufficient steps to implement the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 3375 of 2005, in W.P. No. 11541 of 2004, dated 10.2.2005. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot be punished for contempt of Court for wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 10.2.2005, in W.P.M.P. No. 3375 of 2005, in W.P. No. 11541 of 2004.
25. No doubt the authority and dignity of this Court has to be preserved in the process of establishing and maintaining the rule of law. There is also no doubt that this Court has sufficient powers vested in it by the authority of law to punish the acts and omissions committed by persons having the effect of diluting such authority or dignity. However, this Court is also conscious of the fact that its power to punish persons for contempt of Court is to be exercised with sufficient care and caution. If not, it would result in a situation where Tyranny of law would prevail instead of rule of law.
The contempt petition stands closed. No costs. 25.3.2008 lan