Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jawahar Lal Gupta vs Satpal Sharma on 15 December, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.1401 of 2014
Date of decision:15.12.2014
Jawahar Lal Gupta ... Petitioner
Vs.
Satpal Sharma ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the respondent/contemner.
.....
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The instant contempt petition was filed asserting willful non- compliance of the directions dated 21.05.2013 passed by this Court while disposing of CWP No.11042 of 2013.
Suffice it to notice that the petitioner was seeking allotment of a plot under the oustees category in Sector 18, Faridabad and the Division Bench had directed the respondent-authorities vide order dated 21.05.2013 to take a final decision on the representation dated 17.04.2013 that the petitioner had already submitted.
Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate appearing for the sole respondent/contemner has produced in Court today a speaking order bearing No.26345 dated 12.12.2014 in the light of which the claim of the petitioner has been considered and rejected. A copy of the order has also been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner.
HARJEET KAUR Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the 2014.12.17 22:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document COCP No.1401 of 2014 -2- instant contempt petition with liberty to raise a challenge to the rejection order dated 12.12.2014 on all such grounds that may be available to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.
Prayer is allowed. The contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
It is, however, apposite to notice that the directions issued by the Division Bench were dated 21.05.2013. The respondent/contemner has chosen not to comply with the directions of the Division Bench for a considerable length of time. The proceedings obviously gained impetus only after notice was issued in the instant contempt petition. For such delay and inaction on the part of the respondent/contemner, I deem it appropriate to compensate the petitioner as regards settlement of his rights and quantify cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks' from today.
Disposed of.
Rule discharged.
December 15, 2014 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
harjeet JUDGE
HARJEET KAUR
2014.12.17 22:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document