Gujarat High Court
Shambhubhai Maljibhai Rabari vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation ... on 4 October, 2023
Author: Ashutosh Shastri
Bench: Ashutosh Shastri
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 1037 of 2023
In
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 57 of 2023
==========================================================
SHAMBHUBHAI MALJIBHAI RABARI
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH SHRI M.
THENNARASAN, IAS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT PANCHAL for MR ANGESH A PANCHAL(9138) for the Applicant
MR KAMAL B. TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL, Assisted by MR SATYAM
Y CHHAYA(3242) with MS ANKITA RAJPUT for the Opponent No.1- AMC
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 04/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI)
1. Present Misc. Civil Application is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for the alleged non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in an oral order dated 15.6.2023 passed in Writ PIL No.57 of 2023 despite specifically called upon vide letter dated 16.6.2023 to observe and implement the directions.
2. The background of facts which has given rise to present contempt petition is that originally respondent No.2 of Writ PIL Page 1 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined was making an illegal construction of sheds and roof without taking any permission from respondent No.1 authority, which is required under the provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, precisely in Chapter XV and the same was put up on the agricultural lands bearing Block Nos.770 and 771/P, Mouje Lambha, Taluka Vatva, District Ahmedabad and the land upon which such measures were being taken was admeasuring 70,314 Sq. Mtrs. and 38,403 Sq. Mtrs. respectively which are basically situated in General Agricultural Zone A-1 and falls within the jurisdictional limits of respondent No.1. Applicant had also prayed for directing respondent No.3 to forthwith take action against respondent No.1 in accordance with law for such illegal action and sought incidental reliefs in the Writ PIL with support of several decisions pointed out by the applicant.
3. Said Writ PIL was taken up for hearing and 15.6.2023 on the basis of version of the applicant, the Coordinate Bench was pleased to dispose of the same by issuing directions which are basically contained in pararaph-2 which the Court deems it fit to reproduce hereunder:-
Page 2 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined "[2.0] Having heard learned Advocate Mr. Amit M. Panchal with Mr. Angesh A. Panchal appearing for the petitioner, we dispose of this petition by passing the following order:
The respondents, particularly the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation shall look into the issues involved in the present petition and shall also consider the representation dated 06.06.2023 and shall take appropriate action in accordance with law at the earliest, in line of several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. If necessary, any responsible officer from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation may also inspect the site in question."
4. It is this direction which is not being observed in true spirit according to applicant and the authorities have not taken any action in this regard and as such allegedly committed contempt of the directions issued by the Court in writ PIL, hence present Misc. Civil Application is brought before the Court. Further, it has been mentioned that to implement the directions in specific terms, even a letter was also served upon respondent authority dated 16.6.2023, hence applicant is constrained to approach this Court.
5. Pursuant to notice being issued on 28.6.2023 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and while issuing notice, even the Court also directed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 15.6.2023 and thereafter, after completion of the pleadings, the application has come up for consideration Page 3 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined before this Court, wherein learned advocate Mr. Amit Panchal has represented the applicant, whereas learned Advocate General Shri Kamal B. Trivedi assisted by learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya has represented the respondent Corporation.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Panchal has submitted vehemently that opponent No.2 has not at all taken any permission from opponent No.1 which is mandatorily required under Chapter-XV of GPMC Act and prior to putting up construction/ shed in Agricultural Zone A-1 land bearing Block No.770 and 771/P, Mouje Lambha, on such a large scale even application for seeking permission was also not made and despite specific letter was served upon the respondent authority, no action is initiated so far and as such is a gross contemptuous act committed.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Panchal has further submitted that Part-II of General Development Control Regulation 2017 has postulated what are the permitted uses of land and Regulation 6 which is mentioned in Comprehensive General Development Control Regulation 2017, popularly known as Page 4 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined GDCR, whereas Part-II of the same relates to planning regulation. According to Mr. Panchal, a perusal of table 6.3 at serial No.27 Agriculture (AGI) indicates Uses which are permissible and according to Mr. Panchal, undisputedly, construction of sheds with metal columns made and fixed in concrete in Agricultural Produce Market Committee Yards is not at all permissible as per serial No.27 in Table 6.3 of Regulation 6.1 of GDCR and by drawing attention to certain photographs which are attached to the compilation, Mr. Panchal has submitted that when such situation was noticed at the outset, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to issue directions and despite the same, neither the work is stopped nor any step in compliance is taken. In fact, according to Mr. Panchal, directions were practically in three parts; viz. that Commissioner of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation shall look into the issue involved in the petition, shall also consider the representation dated 6.6.2023 and shall take appropriate action in accordance with law and further such action should be in line of several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and also has expected that if necessary, any responsible Page 5 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined officer from the Corporation may also inspect the site in question. So, when such are the directions specifically engrated in the order dated 15.6.2023, it was obligatory on the part of the authority to strictly adhere to such directions especially when same were pointed out specifically by way of a letter dated 16.6.2023. Hence, according to Mr. Panchal, this is a clear example of outrageous disobedience with deliberate intent of the directions issued by this Court. Hence, by allowing the petition, stringent action be taken against the respondent authority under the Contempt of Courts Act and also under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal by referring to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act has reiterated the submissions. In fact, by virtue of Sections 253 to 263 of the GPMC Act, strict adherence to the procedure which has been prescribed ought to have been observed by the authority and it was also obligatory to make an application and seek permission as required as a part of Mandate of the Statute. No application has been submitted under Chapter-XV of GMPC Act nor any reference is made to indicate that at least, some permission is Page 6 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined sought for and as such learned advocate Mr. Panchal has submitted that Rule of Law requires that every citizen including the officers of an authority who are at whatever position must comply with the mandate of the Court and as such since this being a deliberate intent, stringent action deserves to be taken.
9. As against this, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the authority has first of all submitted that authority has substantially complied with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court and has also vehemently submitted that had the notice been issued in Writ PIL, proper facts would have been brought before the Court and this being the order without affording opportunity to the authority, still the authority has made every attempt to follow the observations. In fact, a detailed affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.1 by the Municipal Commissioner himself and it has been pointed out while submitting unconditional apology that every steps have been taken substantially to see that directions are adhered to and submitted that there is no willful defiance of the directions of any nature, hence initiation of contempt against the authority, according to learned Advocate General, is uncalled Page 7 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined for. By explaining the stand, assertion made in the affidavit-in- reply has been brought to our notice and thereby submitted that authority has examined the grievance voiced out by the applicant and upon close scrutiny, permission has been granted in terms of the powers vested in the authority on 9.6.2023. Simply because, order dated 9.6.2023 is not passed in a manner in which judicial form is required and simply because some authorities have not been discussed at length, same cannot fall in the realm of contempt. According to learned Advocate General, if applicant is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent authority, then he can maintain independent proceedings, otherwise there is a substantial compliance of the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. There appears to be no willful defiance of any nature and at the best, not happily worded order as a better draftsman is no ground for initiation of steps under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and as such, has requested not to entertain the application. Learned Advocate General has thereafter pointed out chronology of events by way of a separate sheet and has pointed out the history and necessity in which such permission Page 8 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined was granted by an authority and by pointing out such detailed chronology of events, a contention is raised that this is not a fit case in which any steps be initiated. In fact, the authorities are law abiding and have immense respect to any of the directions issued by the Court and the deponent has not willfully disobeyed any of the directions. So much so that after noticing the directions, even physical inspection has also been made on 22.6.2023 and panchnama has also been drawn and all detailed steps in the context of substantial compliance have been mentioned in the detailed affidavit-in-reply which was filed initially on 8.8.2023 from page 386 onwards. Learned Advocate General has submitted that this is not a fit case in which proceedings may be entertained. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that even prior to filing of the petition, respondent No.2 APMC had already moved an application on 2.6.2023, seeking permission to erect temporary sheds for the purpose and reasons mentioned therein and land in question is of the ownership and occupation of respondent No.2- APMC authority. Out of the land portion, 10,000 Sq. Yds is forming part of N.A. land bearing Survey No.770 and 771/A/1 Page 9 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined admeasuring 70,134 Sq. Mtrs. and 38,403 Sq. Mtrs. of village Lambha and with a view to see that no congestion in the existing Sardar Patel Market Yard at Jamalpur of respondent No.2 AMPC took place on account of overwhelming presence of traders and farmers coming over there for doing the business during Corona period, even respondent No.2 AMPC directed such people to go to the subject land where they started their activity in the open without there being any basic facility. Photographs relating to the same have also been appended at Annexure-R-II and on account of that kind of situation, respondent No.2 APMC requested to grant permission to erect temporary shed over 10000 Sq. Yds. of land only to provide suitable shelter purely on temporary basis to the traders and farmers coming from different such places and as said earlier, application was made on 2.6.2023 for which after examination, necessary permission was already granted on 9.6.2023 for erection of purely temporary sheds on certain terms and conditions after recovering appropriate amount towards fees and charges upto 8.9.2023 and this permission has already been granted prior to filing of Writ PIL No.57 of 2023.
Page 10 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined
10. Learned Advocate General has specifically drawn attention of the Court to that fact that Writ PIL No.57 of 2023 has been filed on 12.6.2023 and moved for the first time on 15.6.2023, wherein straightway without calling the respondent authorities, directions were issued and prior thereto, permission was already granted. Had the applicant pointed out this fact to the notice of the Bench, probably the directions even ought not to have been issued. However, be that as it may, according to learned Advocate General, applicant has not disclosed this material aspect as it appears. Apart from the fact that applicant is a resident of Jodhpur Cross road at Ahmedabad, how and in what manner he is being affected for the alleged activity at Lambha and he has not pointed out the source and manner in which how the public interest is jeopardized and as such, according to learned Advocate General, applicant has not come forward with proper material facts on hand rather might not have projected but apart from that, substantially respondent No.1 authority has complied with the directions and in due discharge of their statutory authority, powers have been exercised and necessary permission was already granted prior Page 11 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined to moving of PIL for appropriate orders and as such applicant can maintain a separate proceeding if he is aggrieved by the decision taken by respondent authority.
11. Learned Advocate General has further pointed out that when order was passed later on 15.6.2023 by this Court, a team of officers of Estate Department of South Zone of the Corporation consisting of three Town Development Inspectors and two Sub Town Development Inspectors visited and inspected the site on 22.6.2023 and also drew the panchnama on the basis of which a requisite report on 19.7.2023 was placed, based upon which representation of the applicant dated 6.6.2023 was examined and after due deliberation and after discussion, the representation has been considered and if the applicant is aggrieved by it, applicant can maintain independent proceedings and contempt proceeding is not at all maintainable in the respectful submission of learned Advocate General. It has been pointed out that in what particular manner and how the order is passed is not the concern of the applicant, at the best it is the question of the Court and cannot be agitated by the applicant. In the respectful submission of learned Advocate Page 12 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined General, after due consideration of every material and after taking into account all the relevant provisions, decision is taken which cannot be said to be contemptuous in any manner and as such, learned Advocate General has submitted that this is not a case in which any step deserves to be undertaken, hence requested to dismiss the application with exemplary costs.
12. At this stage, to substantiate the stand, learned Advocate General has made a reference to few decisions which may be dealt with at appropriate stage in the present order, but by relying upon the following decisions, a contention is raised that this is not a fit case in which any step deserves against the respondent authority since the authorities have substantially complied with and there is no willful disobedience of alleged non-compliance:-
(1) In the case of Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao reported in (2000) 10 SCC 285, (2) In the case of Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 770.
(3) In the case of Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others reported (2014) 3 SCC 373.Page 13 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined (4) In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K. Earth Movers and others reported in (2017) 13 SCC 339.
13. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, certain circumstances deserve consideration before examining as to whether the grievance voiced out by the applicant is just and proper.
14. First of all, from perusal of the documents attached to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.1 dated 8.8.2023 from page 386 onward, it appears that on 2.6.2023, APMC, Ahmdabad had made an application for seeking permission of temporary structure over 10000 Sq. Yds. of land belonging to APMC for the purpose which is mentioned in the application itself. Based upon such application, it appears that on 9.6.2023, on page 402 of the petition compilation, permission has already been accorded by an authority for a period commencing from 9.6.2023 to 8.9.2023 on temporary basis by imposing certain conditions mentioned therein and for such, authority resorted to Rule 12(1) of Chapter-XII of BPMC Act.
Page 14 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined
15. It further appears that Writ PIL appears to have been filed much after such permission being granted by an authority on 12.6.2023, which date is not in dispute, and same appears to have been entertained by the Court on 15.6.2023 wherein after narrating the details of judgments, ex-parte order has been passed on 15.6.2023 and directions have been issued, as indicated above. So, when first time, an order is passed by this Court in Writ PIL on 15.6.2023, decision to grant permission was already granted on 9.6.2023 and it appears that such fact appears to have not been mentioned in the petition itself. So, straightway, directions appear to have been issued. Had the applicant not insisted straightway for the directions, probably the Court would have an opportunity to see both the versions. Be that as it may, permission has been accorded prior to directions which have been issued. Apart from that, the Court found from the bunch of papers placed with the petition that some persons in AMPC itself have grievance about some charges of deposit. Circular appears to have been issued by APMC reflecting on page 336 (264 of the petition compilation) wherein general commission agents were informed that if any Page 15 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined person is inclined to have a shed, they may deposit Rs.10 lacs within a period of 10 days from such circular as interest free deposit and would be allotted a shed in said portion of land and it also appears from another communication reflecting on page 333 of the petition compilation dated 18.5.2023, wherein one Sunilkumar Parmar appears to have submitted one application dated 6.5.2023 raising a grievance about the construction of shed over the land Survey No.770 and 771/A/1 and in that regard, Mamlatdar has written a communication to the Talati of village Lambha and later on, applicant, a resident of Ahmedabad, has written a letter to the respondent authority, a copy whereof was sent to the concerned Hon'ble Minister, reflecting on page 347 and 348 of the petition compilation, raising grievance. So, it appears from the record that first grievance is raised about fixation of amount with respect to allotment of shed and then subsequently grievance about alleged unauthorized putting up the structure over the land about shed and then the contempt as indicated above. So, this sequence of events is indicating volumes about it. Photographs attached to the compilation indicate that there is some trade Page 16 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined going on about vegetable traders and stakeholders for which permission has already been granted and land is belonging to APMC which is not in dispute. So, from the tenor of the affidavit which has been filed, it appears that after considering the relevant circumstances prior to filing of Writ PIL and even passing of an ex-parte order, already permission was granted.
16. Further, explanation which has been given in affidavit-in- reply also deserves consideration before coming to any ultimate conclusion whether there is any willful disobedience by an authority or not. Since stiff grievance is raised by the applicant, the Court would deem it fit to quote relevant stand taken by authority in the affidavit-in-reply, as such we deem it proper to quote hereunder such stand reflecting in paragraphs 4 to 9 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 8.8.2023:-
"4. Whereas, prior to the filing of aforementioned captioned petition and the order dated 15.06.2023, the Respondent No.2 - APMC had filed an application on 02.06.2023 seeking permission to erect temporary sheds for the purposes and reasons mentioned therein, on land in the ownership and occupation of Respondent No.2 APMC, admeasuring about 10,000 Sq. Yards and forming part of NA land bearing Survey Nos. 770 and 771/A/1, admeasuring 70,134 Sq.Meters and 38,403 Sq.Meters, respectively at Village Lambha ('subject land' for short). For ready reference, a copy of the said Application dated 02.06.2023 made by the Respondent No.2 APMC before the Corporation is annexed hereto and marked Annexure-R-1.
Page 17 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined
5. As is discernible from the above referred application, in furtherance of the directions from the Corporation to avoid congestion in the existing Sardar Patel Market Yard at Jamalpur of the Respondent No.2- APMC which was resulting from overwhelming presence of traders and farmers coming over there for doing the business during the Corona period, Respondent No.2 APMC directed such people to go to the subject land, where they started their activities in open without there being any basic facilities. For ready reference, the situation as in existence at the material time on the subject land when the members of Respondent No.2 - APMC started carrying on their activities of sale and purchase of agricultural produce, is discernible from the photographs, annexed hereto and collectively marked as Annexure-R-II (Colly). It was under these circumstances, Respondent No.2 APMC requested for grant of permission to erect temporary sheds over 10,000 Sq. Yd. of land, so as to provide suitable shelter on temporary basis to the traders and farmers coming from distant places, so that they can do their business without exposing themselves to the severe weather conditions of extreme heat, rain and cyclone.
6. I respectfully state that the Corporation after considering the above referred application dated 02.06.2023 of the Respondent No.2- APMC, issued permission on 09.06.2023 for erection of purely temporary sheds on certain terms and conditions and after recovery of appropriate amount towards the fees and that too, for temporary 08.09.2023 period only i.e. upto 08.09.2023. Pertinently, the said permission also was granted prior to the filing of aforementioned captioned Writ Petition (PIL) No.57 of 2023 and also order dated 15.06.2023. A copy of the said communication dated 09.06.2023 of the Corporation, granting the requisite permission to the Respondent No.2 - APMC is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R-III. Resultantly, temporary sheds came to be erected on the aforesaid subject land owned by the Respondent No.2 APMC, which aspect of the matter can be appreciated from the perusal of the photographs which are annexed hereto and collectively marked as Annexure- R- IV (Colly).
7. In view of the above-referred order dated 15.06.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court, a team of the officers of the Estate Department of South Zone of the Corporation, three Town Development consisting of Inspectors (TDIs) and two Sub-Town Development Inspectors, visited and inspected the site on 22.06.2023 and drew the panchnama, on the basis whereof, the requisite report dated 19.07.2023 was placed before me which was taken into account by me while considering the entire Page 18 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined matter including the Petitioner's representation dated 06.06.2023. Ultimately after discussion, a draft response of the Corporation to be forwarded to the Petitioner was directed to be prepared and the same was accordingly prepared on 21.07.2023, which was personally through and noted by me and thereafter, I directed the officer concerned to forward the same to the Petitioner. A copy of the said response dated 21.07.2023 of the Corporation, whereby the representation dated 06.06.2023 of the Petitioner has been considered by me, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-V.
8. The permission granted by the Corporation to Respondent No.2 -
APMC is for erection of temporary sheds and that too for temporary period so as to enable the Respondent No.2 - APMC to provide shelter to its farmers traders. In my and humble submission, there is no bar for creation of such temporary shed for a temporary period even in General Agricultural Zone-A- keeping in mind, peculiarity of circumstances involved in the case. Thus, the relevant applicable provisions of CGDCR do not prohibit such of temporary phenomenon, which cannot be compared with regular market yard like the existing Sardar Market Yard at Jamalpur as being being discernible from the photographs thereof, which are annexed hereto and collectively marked Annexure-R-VI.
9. Thus, in view of the above, it would become clear that the Corporation has acted absolutely in consonance with the provisions of law and in tune with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 15.06.2023. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the above-referred permission dated 09.06.2023 is issued by the Corporation keeping in mind the details mentioned in the application dated 02.06.2023 and the said permission dated 09.06.2023 is issued, keeping in mind the difficulties being faced by the farmers and traders coming from a distant places for their business at the above-referred place/ land, which is owned by Respondent No.2 - APMC. I crave liberty to file other and further affidavit as and when it is necessary."
17. Later affidavit which has been filed has also indicated in substance the stand which also we deem it proper to quote hereunder:-
Page 19 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined "7. I respectfully state that it is well-settled position of law that so long as source for exercise of power is available under any legislative provision, not mentioning of the same or citing of the wrong provision in the application vis-à-vis the order passed thereon, will not vitiate the consequent permission so granted. It is further stated that, as already discussed in my earlier Affidavit-in-Reply dated 09.08.2023, the Respondent No.1 Corporation is competent and empowered as per the provisions of the CDGCR, as amended from time to time to grant permission dated 09.06.2023.
8. I respectfully deny that the law does not permit granting such permission as granted in the instant case. I deny that the Respondent no.1 had no power under the provisions of the 1949 Act read with the CDGCR to grant permission dated 09.06.2023.
I respectfully say that Respondent no.1 has the power to grant such permission, then even if the application does not indicate the provision of law, the permission so granted would not be vitiated, as the source of power can be traced from the provisions of law and therefore, the exercise thereof, is valid and legal. Furthermore, I respectfully say that the permission dated 09.06.2023 has been granted in accordance with law as directed in order dated 15.06.2023 and the same does not become unreasonable simply because the reasons given therein do not refer to any decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Hon'ble Court. I respectfully say that the Applicant herein cannot insist that reasons given in communication dated 21.07.2023 have to be in a particular fashion. I respectfully say that the order dated 15.06.2023 has been complied with in accordance with law and the Applicant cannot insist that the decision as well as the manner of decision-making has to be as per the Applicant's desire, more particularly, when the Applicant now has no locus in the present case."
18. Further, the relevant provisions which are brought to our notice from notification dated 3.10.2019 reflecting on page 37 onwards is the variation which took place in the Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations, 2017 and said variation has indicated Use, Zone, Classification and Permissible Uses in clause-6 of General Planning and Development Page 20 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined Regulations (page-43). Clause 6.1 is dealing with Use Zone Classification & Permissible Uses. Sub-clause (2) has indicated different uses permissible in various Use Zone (Designation in Development Plan) or general land use either under Revenue Laws or GIDC Act which are specified in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 reflecting on page 47 is consisting of several clauses and relevant clause for present controversy is at serial No.29 on page 49. Clause No.29 which is related to Agriculture Zone, Agriculture, General Agriculture Zone, Conceptualized Zone:
Agriculture-1, Code number is AGZ1, and permissible Use referred as code in last column of that includes TEMP and TR.
TEMP means as Temporary Measure in Agriculture Zone-1.
Simultaneously, Table 6.3 reflects on page 52 deals with Use permitted in Each Category, which consists of several clauses Nos.1 to 39, in which relevant clauses are 27 and 30. Since the same are relevant to the present controversy, we deem it proper to quote the same hereunder:-
Sr. Use Uses
No.
Classification Code
27 Agriculture-1 AG1 Horticulture, Repair and Sale of agricultural
equipment, Saw Mill, Brick Kiln, Dairy Development, Fisheries, Animal Rearing and Breeding, Natural Resource and Sanctuary, Tannery, Concrete Batching Page 21 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined Plant, Cemetery, Burial Ground, Regional Park, Way- side Shop, Agricultural Vocational Training Centre, Panjarapole, Roofing Tiles and Cement Pipes, Studio, Animal Shed, Agro Based Storage, Farm House.
30 Temporary Use TEMP Fair, Circus, Exhibition, Mela, Pandal, Fisheries related activities.
So, it appears prima facie that in the Agriculture Zone, to some extent, as a temporary measure, Pandal is not that much prohibited.
19. Further, such measure has been taken substantially in an portion of 10000 Sq. Yds, said to have been Non-Agricultural portion and that too purely as a temporary measure. No document is indicating from the record that it is a permanent measure, it might be that for the purpose of its stability and safety, shed might have been put up but that may not construe the same as a permanent feature and even learned Advocate General has also conveyed that it is not a permanent measure. In fact, in a communication dated 21.7.2023, reflecting on page- 407, it is mentioned that in a land belonging to APMC, on NA portion of land, as temporary measure, vegetable trade is being undertaken and extension which has been sought for is also on payment, as indicated in such communication.
Page 22 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined
20. Now, in the light of this, what has been contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that Chapter-XV deals with Building Regulations, which requires certain procedure to be observed closely. Section 253 of the GPMC Act indicates that notice to be given to Commissioner of intention to erect building,- where every person who is inclined to erect a building which might be in the form of shed shall give to the Commissioner notice of his intention in the manner. A perusal of decision dated 9.6.2023 indicates that request was already made on 2.6.2023 for such inclination and as such it does not appear prima facie that without any application or without any intimation to the Commissioner, straightway, process has been undertaken of erecting the sheds and again permission had already been granted by an authority. Rule 12 contained in Chapter-XII which relates to Building Regulation and Building Loans that is dealing with Roofs and external walls of buildings not to be of inflammable materials, which also requires a written permission of the Commissioner and here, as indicated above, material indicates that putting up of shed is Page 23 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined with specific written permission on a temporary basis, again on certain conditions and if aggrieved, same can be challenged in an independent proceedings, especially when no reference is made in Writ PIL nor challenge is made before inviting directions.
21. Noticing the action of respondent authority no-doubt indicates that judgments referred to in the order have also been strictly referred to while passing the order, but then whether same can be said to be willful disobedience or contemptuous with intent is an issue to be dealt with by this Court in the present proceedings and hence for that purpose, we may refer to few decisions which are brought to our notice by learned Advocate General.
(1) First judgment which has been pointed out is in the case of Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao reported in (2000) 10 SCC 285, wherein the observations contained in paragraph-4 are worth consideration, hence we deem it proper to quote the same hereunder to ascertain as to whether the act of an authority in the present proceedings is willful disobedience, amounting to contempt or not:-
"4. The High Court in the writ petition had issued a direction for the Page 24 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined consideration of the respondent's representation by the State Government. This direction was carried out by the State Government which had considered and thereafter rejected the representation on merits. Instead of challenging that order in a fresh writ petition under Art.226, the respondent took recourse to contempt proceedings which did not lie as the order had already been complied with by the State Government which had considered the representation and rejected it on merits."
(2) Yet in another decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 770, in the context of contempt of Court, precisely, civil contempt, few observations are made by Hon'ble the Apex Court and most relevant paragraphs 17 and 23 we deem it proper to quote hereunder:-
"17. This now leads us to the next question and a more relevant one, as to whether a proceeding for contempt initiated against the appellant can be held to be sustainable merely on speculation, assumption and inference drawn from facts and circumstances of the instant case. In our considered opinion, the answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of the well-settled legal position reflected in a catena of decisions of this court that contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences, non-compliance of the same cannot be held to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing the serious consequence including imposition of punishment. However, when the Courts are confronted with a question as to whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case of a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it may be, will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct to be too speculative based on assumption as the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 clearly postulates and emphasizes that the ingredient of wilful disobedience must be there before anyone can be hauled up for the charge of contempt of a civil nature.
Page 25 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined
23. Besides this, it would also not be correct to overlook or ignore an important statutory ingredient of contempt of a civil nature given out u/s 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 that the disobedience to the order alleging contempt has to satisfy the test that it is a wilful disobedience to the order. Bearing this important factor in mind, it is relevant to note that a proceeding for civil contempt would not lie if the order alleged to have been disobeyed itself provides scope for reasonable or rational interpretation of an order or circumstance which is the factual position in the instant matter. It would equally not be correct to infer that a party although acting due to misapprehension of the correct legal position and in good faith without any motive to defeat or defy the order of the Court, should be viewed as a serious ground so as to give rise to a contempt proceeding."
(3) Further, yet in another decision which has been brought to our notice, in the case of Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others reported (2014) 3 SCC 373, a reference is made about powers to be exercised in contempt proceedings and for that, paragraph 19 deserves to be quoted hereunder:-
"19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to Page 26 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others[3], V.M.Manohar Prasad vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another[4], Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and Others[5] and Union of India and Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV[6]."
(4) Yet another decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K. Earth Movers and others reported in (2017) 13 SCC 339 has some significance and the observations contained in paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 are quoted hereunder:-
"3. Alleging wilful disobedience of the High Court order dated 20-2- 2013¹, Contempt Petition No. 909(C) of 2013 has been filed by the respondent-writ petitioners, wherein the impugned order? has been passed by the High Court by which the High Court virtually sought to determine the entitlement of the respondent- writ petitioners for payment and, accordingly, called for the original records. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal.
5. The order of the High Court dated 20-2-2013 in A.K. Earth Movers v. State of U.P.¹ in respect of which disobedience has been alleged merely directed consideration of the writ petitioners' representation.
6. The said representation was duly considered and orders thereon were passed by the authority concerned on 15-3-2013. If the respondent-writ petitioners had any grievance against the said order dated 15-3-2013, it was open for them to seek their legal remedies against the same in accordance with law. We do not see how the contempt petition could have been maintained in the facts noted above. In any case, we do not see how the High Court could have considered it proper to propose an Page 27 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined adjudication of the entitlement of the respondent-writ petitioners for payment in a contempt proceeding as has been done by the impugned order.
7. In view of the facts stated above, we do not consider that it was proper for the High Court to proceed in the manner indicated in the impugned order². We. therefore, set aside the aforesaid order and leave the respondent-writ petitioners with all other remedies as may be open to them in law for the redressal of their grievances, if any."
(5) Apart from the above, broad proposition which has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of contempt jurisdiction in the judgment of recent past in the case of Dr. U.N. Bora Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and Another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 101, relevant observations we deem it proper to quote hereunder:-
DISCUSSION:
8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "willful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element.
It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very Page 28 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigor when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings.
9. We do not wish to reiterate the aforesaid settled principle of law except by quoting the reasoned decision of this Court in Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal, 2020 SCC Online SC 438 wherein the celebrated judgment in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, has been quoted. The following paragraphs would govern the aforesaid principle:
"20. At the outset, we must advert to the contours delineated by this court for initiating civil contempt action in Ram Kishan vs. Tarun Bajaj & Ors. In paragraphs 11, 12 and 15 of the reported decision, this Court noted thus:
"11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful 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 5 (2014) 16 SCC 204 18 will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a 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 be 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. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697, Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530, Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360, Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600.
12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is "wilful". The word "wilful" introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/ contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. "Wilful" means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does 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".
Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, Page 29 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined 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 doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was 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 or misconduct." (Vide S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Attabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591, Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC 255, Niaz Mohammad v. State of 19 Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332, Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282, Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, (2013) 9 SCC 753.
xxx xxx xxx
15. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. [See Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak, (2008) 14 SCC 392 and Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CESC Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592."
21. Similarly, in R.N. Dey & Ors. vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors., this Court expounded in paragraph 7 as follows:
"7. We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the court is to be exercised for maintenance of the court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the court. It is true that in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending and has ordered that it should be heard along with the first appeal. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that under the coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be directed to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by asserting that claimants were not the owners of the property in question and that decree was obtained by suppressing the material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that the claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the 6 (2000) 4 SCC 400 20 said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is a nullity. In such a situation, as there was no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the Page 30 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined order, the initiation of contempt proceedings was wholly unjustified."
xxx xxx xxx
25. Pertinently, the special leave petitions were filed by the respondent against the order dated 28.1.2019, which as aforesaid, did not deal with the question regarding the monthly rent payable by the respondent but explicitly left the parties to pursue the same before the executing Court. The plaintiff/petitioner having acquiesced of that observation of the High Court, cannot be allowed to contend to the contrary. This Court in Jhareswar Prasad Paul & Anr. vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly & Ors., in paragraph 11, opined thus:
"11. ... The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, 7 (2002) 5 SCC 352 23 be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction "that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute" in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts."
xxx xxx xxx
26. Thus understood, we find force in the explanation offered by the respondent that as per its bona fide understanding, there was no outstanding dues payable to the petitioner. Moreover, as observed by the High Court, these aspects could be answered by the executing Court if the parties pursue their claim(s) before it in that regard. Suffice it to observe that it is not a case of intentional violation or wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court to initiate contempt action against the respondent. Instead, we hold that it would be open to the parties to pursue their claim(s) in execution Page 31 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined proceedings or any other proceedings, as may be permissible in law in respect of the issue(s) under consideration. In such proceedings, all aspects can be considered by the concerned forum/Court on merits in accordance with law. We say no more.
27. Reverting to the allegation about damage caused to the suit property by the respondent at the time of vacating the same, in our opinion, the respondent has made out a formidable case that it did not cause any damage, much less permanent damage to the structure in the suit property. Whereas, the petitioner was relying on photographs concerning the debris on the site left behind at the time of vacating the suit property. The debris cannot cause damage and it is certainly not a case of defacement of the suit property. That position is reinforced from the fact that the water park in the suit premises was started and became fully functional within 2-3 months. Viewed thus, it is rightly urged that it can be safely assumed that no damage was caused by the respondent to the structure in question. Minor repairs required to be carried out by the petitioner for making the water park functional cannot be painted as intentional disobedience of the order of this Court. In any case, that being a complex question of fact, need not be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings. We leave it open to the petitioner to pursue even that claim in execution proceedings or such other proceedings as may be permissible in law. We may not be understood to have expressed any final opinion in respect of condition of the suit premises, whilst handing over possession to the petitioner. We hold that even this issue under consideration does not warrant initiation of contempt action against the respondent."
(emphasis supplied) (6) Further, another proposition is to the effect that no clear case of willful disobedience is made out of any nature, which may permit us to hold the respondent authority as guilty of contempt. Said observation contained in the decision in the case of Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya v. Riju Prasad Sarma and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine 1254, we deem it proper to quote hereunder:-
"11. It is argued that the report of the Additional Director General of CID, Assam has not been disputed by the concerned respondents. Perusal of the order dated 31st January 2020 shows that there was no opportunity granted to the parties to file any objections to the report. It cannot be said that as the respondents did not object to the report, they have accepted the liability to pay the amount of Rs.7,62,03,498/-. Moreover, the Page 32 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined observations in the report cannot be treated as concluded findings. Even assuming that paragraph 73 of the Judgment dated 7 th July 2015 includes a direction to pay money, there is no adjudication made to decide what is the extent of liability. Hence, in our view, no case made out to take action under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Moreover, the contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. This is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by punishing the respondents. However, it is always open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings for recovery of money as mentioned in the report in accordance with law."
(emphasis supplied)
22. So, from the aforesaid observation, proposition and material placed before us and upon overall consideration and on the basis of affidavit and averments including chronology of events which have been placed before us, we are of the clear opinion that this is not a fit case in which any clear case of contempt is made out by the applicant and we found that there appears to be a substantial compliance. Hence, we deem it proper not to entertain present application being devoid of merits, hence present application stands DISMISSED with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
23. While parting with this, however we make it clear that this disposal of contempt petition will not come in the way of the Page 33 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1037/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined applicant to carryout any other proceedings if permissible in law and for which we express no opinion on merit.
Sd/-
(ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J) Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) OMKAR Page 34 of 34 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:43:42 IST 2023