Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs". The above is an extract from a recent judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta Versus Union of India and others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 273. Material on record of this contempt petition unfolds a blatant and glaring case of continuous and many faceted deliberate and wilfull disobedience of an injunction order obtained by the opposite party no.4 from this Court. A huge plot of land admittedly situate within the domain and supervision of Cantonment Board, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the Board) measuring 9.06 acres has been divided into dozens of plots, sold to different persons and a whole colony constructed containing palatial residential buildings, shopping and commercial complexes including a Mall in gross violation of the injunction order. Opposite party no.4 got a power of attorney executed in his favour from opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and thereafter proceeded to sell plots, get buildings raised without any sanction or approval of the Board and in the process himself raised three huge constructions and encouraged the purchasers to raise their individual constructions all without getting any building maps being approved by the Board in gross violation and disregard to the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws of the Board and of course in violation of the injunction order. The Court is shocked at the courage, boldness, mischief and the deep rooted disregard shown by the opposite party no.4 in committing the grossest contempt continuing for years together. He has also been dishonest and deceitful in not disclosing to purchasers about the pending litigation and the injunction orders passed by the High Court. The facts recorded in this order leaves the Court with no option but to award the maximum punishment permissible under law and issue other necessary directions in the interest of justice. This contempt application filed by Cantonment Executive Officer and President of the Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantonment under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 1971 Act) alleges disobedience of the order dated 13th April, 1995 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 298 of 1995 - Smt. Pushpa Devi and others Vs. Cantonment Board Meerut and others. In the contempt application (i) Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Late Sumant Prasad Jain, (ii) Chandra Prakash Jain S/o Late Sumant Prasad Jain (iii) Vijay Prakash Jain S/o late Sumant Prakash Jain and (iv) Sri Anand Prakash Agarwal S/o Dhan Prakash Agarwal {holding power of attorney of opposite parties (i) to (iii)} have been impleaded as opposite parties. Order dated 13.04.1995 passed by the Division Bench in the aforementioned First Appeal From Order reads as follows :-

(i) Ganpat Ram Raj Kumar Versus Kalu Ram & others reported in 1989 Supp(2) SCC 418.

Having considered the submissions, it may be noticed that raising of constructions is not a day's affair. It is a continuing process, it may take years to complete. If the High Court had restrained the appellants from raising any further constructions, on 13th April, 1995 disobedience would be constituted if any further constructions were raised after the said date may be after five years or 10 years or may be immediately after the date of the order. Cantonment Board in its affidavit filed in support of contempt application had clearly stated that opposite parties were continuously making unauthorised constructions and various reports in that regard were submitted by staff of Cantonment Board right up to the month of December, 2000 and they were placed on record. These reports had been submitted after spot inspection. The officials of Cantonment Board had submitted reports right from 1996 till 2000, which have been filed along with affidavit as Annexures A-III to A-IX details of which have already been recorded in earlier part of this order. Further complaint made to the police station concerned in December, 2000 regarding non compliance / disobedience of orders passed by the High Court regarding maintenance of status quo has been filed as Annexure no.XI. Photographs of the constructions were also filed as Annexure X. The officials of the Board in their deposition as PW I to PW IV have also supported the continuance of the constructions through out. In reply to affidavit filed in support of contempt application as also in reply to show cause notice against charges, opposite party no.4 has not denied raising of constructions. What has been submitted is that he would be more cautious in future and further that no deliberate or intentional act has been committed by the deponent. Aforesaid facts have been stated in paragraph 3 of affidavit of the opposite party no.4 filed along with the application dated 29.07.2007. In paragraph no.9 it is admitted that the subsequent purchasers had raised unauthorised constructions. From above facts it is evident that at the time of filing of contempt application or at least one year prior to filing of contempt application, the constructions were being raised. It therefore does not stand to reason that the application is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon two decisions Islamuddin (supra) and Pallav Seth (Supra) in support of this objection. In the case of Islamuddin (supra) the question involved was as to whether provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 would be applicable to the contempt proceedings initiated after expiry of period of one year from the date of alleged contempt. The Division Bench of this Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 would have no application in such matters. The question involved in the present case is totally different. Further in the case of Pallav Seth (supra) the question involved was as to from which date the proceedings would be treated to have been initiated. Both the aforesaid cases do not relate to raising of constructions continuously for years and as such will have no application in the facts of the present case. Whereas in case of Ganpat Ram Raj Kumar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, the Supreme Court has held that failure to give possession of the premises in compliance of Court orders would be a continuing wrong and hence limitation under Section 20 of the 1971 Act would not be applicable. In the present case constructions having been continuously raised upto December, 2000 as such the contempt application filed on 12th February, 2001 would be well within time and would not be hit by Section 20 of the Act. MERITS OF THE CONTEMPT :