Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rulda Ram vs Rakesh Kanwar on 28 February, 2015
Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
COPC No.415 of 2014.
Judgment reserved on : 24.02.2015.
Date of decision: February 28, 2015.
Rulda Ram .....Petitioner.
Versus
Rakesh Kanwar .....Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the Petitioner : Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General with Mr.Anup Rattan,
Mr.Romesh Verma, Additional
Advocate Generals, Mr.J.K.Verma
and Mr.Kush Sharma, Deputy
Advocate Generals.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The petitioner has approached this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent alleging therein that he knowingly and willfully disobeyed the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.563 of 2002 dated 14.10.2003 and further that he had not complied the judgment of this Court passed in COPC No.152 of 2014 dated 19.05.2014.
2. The subject-matter in this petition is a property commonly known as "potato ground" situate in Manali. The petitioner along with Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:41:13 :::HCHP 2 three others filed CWP No.563 of 2002 wherein the following reliefs were sought:-
.
"a) confine the use of area mentioned hereinabove in para 4 of the writ petition exclusively for the purpose of playground or other education related activities of the Government Senior Secondary School, Manali.
b) restrain the respondents from changing the use or nature of the land in any manner whatsoever not related to the school curriculum.
c) take immediate steps for transferring the ownership of the land to the Education department."
3. When the case was taken up for hearing on 14.10.2003, the then learned Advocate General placed on record a communication received by him from the Principal Secretary (Education) and the petition was disposed of in the following terms:-
"When this case was taken up today, Shri M.S. Chandel, learned Advocate General placed on record original communication received by him from the Principal Secretary (Education), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Its contents are extracted hereinbelow:-
"Subject: CWP No.563/2002-Rulda Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
Sir, I am directed to refer to the above mentioned Civil Writ Petition which is pending disposal in the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
In this regard, it has been decided that no Government Building/Mini Secretariat shall be built on the piece of land which is in the possession of Education Department and the same has been allowed to be used as a playground by the Government Senior Secondary School at Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:41:13 :::HCHP 3
You are, therefore, requested kindly to apprise the Hon'ble High Court of the same accordingly.
.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Deputy Secretary (Edu.) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh.
In view of what has been extracted hereinabove, nothing survives in this writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of.
Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated and r pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of."
4. However, on the same subject-matter another petition being CWP No.528 of 2003 was preferred by one Raj Chauhan. This Court while adjudicating upon this petition issued various directions from time to time including a direction on 06.05.2005 whereby it directed the respondent "to use the land in the best public interest". Pursuant to such directions, a proposal to build a multi level parking on this land was passed and thereafter duly approved by this Court on 14.12.2006. Notably, even the present petitioner had filed an application for becoming a party therein which application was duly allowed. Therefore, the petitioner was fully aware of these directions. The writ petition was finally dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 08.05.2008.
5. The petitioner, initially, preferred COPC No.152 of 2014 alleging therein that the petitioner had recently come to know that the respondent in utter violation of the judgment dated 14.10.2003 in CWP No.563 of 2002 had made entry vide rapat No.179/5-12-06 and the land in question i.e. playground had been mutated in the name of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Divisional Manager, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:41:13 :::HCHP 4 Kullu and thereby violated the order passed by this Court on 14.10.2003. This petition was disposed of by this Court on the first date of hearing .
itself by directing the respondent to comply with the directions dated 14.10.2003 passed in CWP No.563 of 2002 within a period of six weeks, if not already complied with and report compliance before the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
6. It is thereafter that the present petition has been preferred alleging therein that the respondent has knowingly and willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 14.10.2003 in CWP No.563 of 2002 and further directions passed by this Court on 19.05.2014 in COPC No.152 of 2014.
7. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, who is present in person and has filed his reply and claimed that it is only in furtherance of the directions passed by this Court in CWP No.528 of 2003 that the land has been transferred in the name of the Transport Department and this action of the respondent has already been challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.4158 of 2009.
8. Now, in this background, can the respondent be said to have committed contempt of this Court when admittedly he has only acted in compliance and in furtherance to the orders passed by this Court.
9. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law Courts power to punish an offender for his willful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the Courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the Judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:41:13 :::HCHP 5 powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and, unless, thus, otherwise satisfied .
beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature and, therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt.
10. In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is willful. If the disobedience of the order is willful and deliberate, it means that there must be a mental element present before the action can be termed as willful. After-all, 'willful' means knowingly, intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Similarly, willful acts do not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. Willful act is, therefore, required to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doi ng and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Therefore, it necessarily implies that even if there is disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it is not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default on his conduct. (Refer: Ram Kishan versus Tarun Bajaj and others (2014) 2 SLJ 112). ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:41:13 :::HCHP 6
11. Tested on the touchstone of the guidelines and parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan's case .
(supra), we are unable to agree with the submissions of the petitioner that the respondent has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. The proposal to raise a multi level parking or transferring the land in the name of the Transport Department has been done only because there was a direction passed to this effect by this Court in CWP No.528 of 2003. The respondent of his own has not done any act which can be said to be amounting to willful or deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court. Once the action of the respondent cannot be construed to be intentional, conscious, calculated or deliberate and done intentionally so as to disobey the orders passed by this Court, he cannot be prosecuted or punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. Surprisingly, even till the year 2009 when the petitioner filed CWP No.4158 of 2009, he did not find the action of the then Collector-cum- Deputy Commissioner to be contemptuous, then why the petitioner has now chosen to target the present incumbent is not forthcoming.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Notice issued to the respondent on 26.09.2014 is discharged. The pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir), Chief Justice.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), February 28, 2015. Judge.
(krt) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:41:13 :::HCHP