This court rejected a petition for contempt proceedings alleging violation of a 1995 order. The court held that the interim non-dispossession direction was valid only until the appeal was decided by the Chief Administrator, after which the petitioner sought no further relief.
Petition for contempt proceedings is dismissed.
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.
COCP No. 1159 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No. 1159 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.5.2011
Ajay Kumar
.. Petitioner
v.
G. K. Pillai and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. G. S. Kler, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The initiation of contempt proceedings has been sought on the basis of order passed by this court on 26.5.1995, whereby in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, a direction was issued to Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was further directed that in case the petitioner is in possession of the site in question, he be not dispossessed.
It is not disputed that the appeal was decided by the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 10.10.1995.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while deciding the appeal, the Chief Administrator remanded the matter back to the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh for passing appropriate orders after hearing the parties. No further order has been passed by the Estate Officer. However, the petitioner has been dispossessed on 3.5.2011. This amounts to violation of the order passed by this court on 26.5.1995.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Vide order dated 26.5.1995, this court directed the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh to decide
COCP No. 1159 of 2011 [2]
the appeal filed by the petitioner within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The interim direction regarding dispossession obviously was for the period till the appeal was to be decided by the Chief Administrator. This court had not granted any relief to the petitioner even for the period after the decision of appeal by the Chief Administrator. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
25.5.2011 mk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief for dispossession after the appeal before the Chief Administrator was decided in violation of the interim stay order of this court.
Whether the interim direction regarding non-dispossession extended beyond the period until the appeal was decided by the Chief Administrator.
Ajay Kumar
G. K. Pillai
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
