Delhi High Court - Orders
Sunil Kumar Aledia vs Sh K Mahesh & Ors on 22 December, 2022
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1429/2022
SUNIL KUMAR ALEDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Renu, Ms. Shweta Priya and Mr.
Raghunath, Advocates
versus
SH K MAHESH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Standing
counsel, GNCTD.
Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate
with Mv. V.S. Verma, Director, Mr.
A.K. Srivastava and Mr. Pranav Sinha,
R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 22.12.2022
1. The present petition has been filed stating that the Respondents by passing the office order dated 15.12.2022 regarding shifting of Beggars to Night Shelters, have committed contempt of Court, since the said office order is in violation of the judgment dated 08.08.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 10498/2018. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under: -
"44. In the result, we declare Section Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, as extended to Delhi, as unconstitutional and strike down the said provisions.
45. The inevitable sequitur to our decision would be that all prosecutions, under the Act against persons alleged to have committed the offence of begging, would be liable to be struck down. The power to do so would, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:28.12.2022 21:41:55 however, appropriately vest in the Courts seized of such prosecutions, and we, therefore, limit ourselves to observing that the fate of such prosecutions, if any, would have to abide by the present judgment, and our observations and findings contained herein.
46. The state is always at liberty to bring in alternative legislation to curb any racket of forced begging after undertaking an empirical examination on the sociological and economic aspects of the matter."
(Emphasis supplied)
2. This Court has perused the writ petition. It is stated by the learned counsel for Petitioner that Petitioner has no personal interest in the present contempt petition and it is being filed in public interest.
3. This Court is of the view that the legality of the office order dated 15.12.2022 should in the first instance be assailed in writ proceedings, in accordance with law. The Petitioner, if so advised, may file an appropriate writ petition assailing about the said impugned office order in accordance with law. However, in the opinion of this Court the present contempt proceedings are not maintainable to impugn the said office order without a finding of the Court with respect to its legality.
4. With the aforesaid observations, reserving liberty to the Petitioner, the present petition is disposed of.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the legality of the office order dated 15.12.2022. All contentions of the parties are left open.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 22, 2022/rhc/ms/hp Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:28.12.2022 21:41:55