Shri Ved Prakash v. Directorate General of Resettlement and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Aug 2025CONT.CAS(C)/1193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC, CONT.CAS(C) 1193/2025, Amit Sharma, J., 07.08.2025 — contempt petition under Ss. 10–12, Contempt of Courts Act 1971 by Ved Prakash v. DGR & Ors.; alleged non-disposal of CM No. 23533/2025 in W.P.(C) 12422/2024 (order dt. 09.05.2025) and of representation dt. 14.05.2025 concerning non-release of ESM Scheme payment; respondents stated representation decided vide Diary No. 5555498/2025; Court held direction was only to decide the representation and petitioner may pursue legal remedies; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the contempt petition was disposed of without initiation of contempt proceedings, the petitioner being left free to avail of the legal remedies available in accordance with law. ¶¶25

Shri Ved Prakash Vs Directorate General of Resettlement and… — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the contempt petition was disposed of without initiation of contempt proceedings, the petitioner being left free to avail of the legal remedies available in accordance with law.

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent no. 1 (through the Officer-in-charge) and Respondent no. 2 (through its Director) committed contempt of the Court by showing contumacious conduct with respect to the impugned order dated 9 May 2025 — by not disposing of CM No. 23533/2025 in W.P.(C) 12422/2024 while treating it as a representation — and by their handling of the petitioner's subsequent representation dated 14 May 2025. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

So far as the present contempt petition was concerned, the direction (in the order dated 09.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 12422/2024) was to decide the petitioner's representation; the Court did not adjudicate the adequacy or outcome of that decision.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of the decision on the representation, the petitioner may avail of the legal remedies available in accordance with law.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt — Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Ss. 10, 11 and 12 — Petition (CONT.CAS(C) 1193/2025) by Shri Ved Prakash v. Directorate General of Resettlement & Ors. alleging contumacious failure to dispose of CM No. 23533/2025 in W.P.(C) 12422/2024, the application having been treated as a representation, along with the petitioner's further representation dated 14.05.2025. The order dated 09.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 12422/2024 had recorded DGR's undertaking (without prejudice) to consider the petitioner's representation on non-release of payment under the ESM Scheme through a Board of Officers with an opportunity of hearing. Counsel for the respondents informed the Court that the representation had since been decided vide Diary No. 5555498/2025 and the copy supplied to petitioner's counsel; petitioner's counsel contended the issues raised were not addressed. Held (Amit Sharma, J.): so far as the contempt petition was concerned, the direction was only to decide the representation, and a petitioner dissatisfied with the outcome may avail of the legal remedies available in accordance with law; the petition was disposed of (order dated 07.08.2025). No contempt proceedings were initiated and no quantum was awarded.

¶1

$~120

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1193/2025

¶4

SHRI VED PRAKASH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Pallavi Parmar, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF RESETTLEMENT AND ORS

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Ms. Awajita Verma, Advs. with Mr. Abhishek J. DGR.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 07.08.2025

¶14

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶15

The present petition under Section 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeks the following prayers:-

¶16

“a. Allow the instant Petition taking cognizance of this act of Contempt by the Respondent no.1 through the Officer-in-charge as named and Respondent no. 2 through its Director as named in the memo of Parties; and; b. Initiate proper proceedings against the Respondents and punish them accordingly in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts act for showing contumacious conduct with respect to the Impugned Order dated 9th May 2025 by not disposing off CM No. 23533/2025 in WP (C) no. 12422/2024 while treating it to be a representation and the subsequent Representation dated 14th May 2025 sent by the Petitioner; and

¶17

Pass any other further order/s which this Hon'ble Court may

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 11:50:24

¶20

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in interest of justice.”

¶21

Vide order dated 09.05.2025 in W.P (C) 12422/2024 the following directions were passed:-

¶22

“3. In compliance of the order dated 07.05.2025, the competent person, i.e., Col. Navneet Dahia, Director (Self Employment), DGR, is present in Court today. Ms. Dubey, learned CGSC for UOI, upon instructions from Col. Navneet Dahia, states that without prejudice, the petitioner’s representation pertaining to non-release of payment under the ESM Scheme would be considered by the DGR and a Board of Officers would be constituted for the said purpose and an opportunity of hearing would also be granted.”

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent on advance notice submits that the aforesaid representation has since been decided vide Diary No. 5555498/2025. The decision has been passed, copy of the same has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the decision has not been taken with respect to the issues raised by the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, so far as the present petition was concerned, the direction was to decide the representation. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of the order, the petitioner may avail of the legal remedies available in accordance with law.

¶25

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

¶26

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶27

AUGUST 7, 2025/ nk/sp

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 11:50:24

Shri Ved Prakash v. Directorate General of Resettlement and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ved Prakash v. Directorate General of Resettlement and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Dumesh Kumar Vs Sh. Vijay Kumar

Sh Shashi Kant Singh Vs Smt Ranjana Singh

Nauman Ahmad Khan Vs Managing Committee Rabea Girls Public School Qasimjan Street Ballimaran Delhi 110006 through Its Pr

Nauman Ahmad Khan Vs Managing Committee Rabea Girls Public School Qasimjan Street Ballimaran Delhi 110006 through Its Pr

Rajni Vs Shri Ashwani Kumar, Commissioner, MCD and Anr.

Minatirani Mohapatra, Vs Mahesh Prasad Mishra & Ors.

Aniljit Singh Vs N Saravana Kumar & Anr.

Sunder Lal Gupta Vs Shri Karan Singh & Anr.

Sh. Dumesh Kumar Vs Sh. Vijay Kumar

Sh Shashi Kant Singh Vs Smt Ranjana Singh

Nauman Ahmad Khan Vs Managing Committee Rabea Girls Public School Qasimjan Street Ballimaran Delhi 110006 through Its Pr

Great River Coy Private Limited Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.

Ropas Logistics Private Limited Vs Coal India Limited & Ors.

M/S Trispace Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Coal India Limited & Ors.