In a contempt application challenging noncompliance with a direction to dispose of tenant representations, this Court held that the applicants' apprehension of demolition did not establish disobedience of the order or justify contempt proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114923
Court No. - 1
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4606 of 2024
Applicant :- Mohd Naseem And Another Opposite Party :- Mr Chandra Mohan Garg, Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Irteqa
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the applicants.
The present contempt application has been filed pleading noncompliance of the order dated 9.6.2023 passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 19956 of 2023.
Through order dated 9.6.2023, this Court had passed the following directions : -
" Be that as it may, since no notice has been issued to the petitioners to vacate the premises in question of which they are in possession by virtue of lease executed sometimes in the year 1950, it is hereby provided that the petitioners shall make their individual representations to the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj within a period of two weeks from today and in the event such representations are filed by the petitioners individually, the same shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period of two weeks, but prior to taking any coercive measure against the petitioners.
Needless to add, petitioners shall be given opportunity of hearing and orders to be passed shall be reasoned and speaking one. "
The applicants state that the representations of the applicants have not yet been decided by the Municipal Commissioner. The applicants, however, apprehend that their shops will be demolished without deciding the representations filed by the applicants. The said apprehension by the applicants is because the shops in the vicinity of the applicants' shop have been demolished.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the shops in the vicinity of the shop of the applicants were demolished without deciding the representations of the aforesaid shop keepers.
The averment only indicates the apprehension of the applicants and not any disobedience of the direction of the Court. No contempt has yet been committed by the opposite parties.
The applicants may exercise other remedies available to them in law including filing of a writ petition. It is not a case for taking cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 19.7.2024 Satyam
Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure of respondents to decide applicant representations despite apprehension of demolition warrants contempt cognizance.
Whether the present case attracts the jurisdiction and procedure of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd Naseem And Another
Mr Chandra Mohan Garg
Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
