In a contempt petition alleging violation of a status quo interim order, the single judge held that since the main writ petition had been withdrawn by the petitioners, there were no grounds to penalize the respondents for the alleged breach.
Contempt petition dismissed; no penalty imposed.
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 1804 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
COCP 1804 of 2013 Date of decision:-23.10.2013
Harbhajan singh and others
Petitioners
vs.
Suresh Kumar nad ors
Respondent
Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate. Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. PK Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
After filing of the present contempt petition in May 2013, the petitioners have withdrawn the main writ petition on 26.9.2013.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents 5 and 6 had raised construction despite an interim order of status quo during pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in view of the violation of the interim order of status quo, the contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners being owners of some land in the area of Village Baran, Tehsil and District Patiala, had challenged the development agreement between the Chief Administrator, Patiala Development Authority and M/S Omaxe Limited, challenging the public purpose of the acquisition.
While admitting the said writ petition on 29.7.2011, a Division
Mann Tapindar Singh 2013.10.28 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
COCP 1804 of 2013
2
Bench of this Court had issued a direction that status quo be maintained and no construction should be raised till further orders. The grievance of the petitioners is that during pendency of the writ petition between 29.7.2011 till September, 2013, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have raised constructions. Photographs (Annexure P-5) indicating that the construction was raised in November 2012 and December, 2013, have been placed on record.
The short question, which is required to be determined in the present contempt petition, is whether there has been willful disobedience of the order passed by this court, by the respondents, including respondents 5 and 6, warranting conviction of the respondents. It is not out of place to observe that the objective of the civil contempt is to execute any order or direction passed by the High Court or the Subordinate Courts. Any person, who wilfully disobeys an order of the court, can be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. In the present case, the petitioners appear to be the original land owners, whose land has been acquired for the alleged public purpose by respondents 1 to 4. The main writ petition has already been withdrawn by the petitioners, as such, the petitioners do not have any right, title or interest in the property, except for a right to claim compensation/ enhanced compensation.
The main writ petition having already been withdrawn, there does not appear to be any reasonable ground to penalise the respondents. It will not be out of place to observe here that in the affidavit of Deputy Commissioner- cum- Chief Administrator, Patiala Development Authority, it has been informed that on receipt of the contempt petition, the construction on the spot has been duly stopped and no construction whatsoever is being permitted on date. Tool of contempt of court, cannot be permitted to
Mann Tapindar Singh2013.10.28 14:27be used by a party to settle other scores. As in the present case, the main I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
COCP 1804 of 2013
3
writ petition has already been withdrawn by the petitioners, the contempt petition also deserves to be dismissed as the petitioners seem to have not suffered any prejudice on account of the alleged violation of the status quo order in the public interest litigation. It will not be appropriate to penalise
the respondents for their act, as alleged by the petitioners.
In view of the above circumstances, the contempt petition is
dismissed.
October 23 ,2013 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE
Mann Tapindar Singh 2013.10.28 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there was willful disobedience of the interim order mandating status quo warranting conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Whether the contempt petition deserves disposal when the main writ petition has been withdrawn by the petitioners.
Whether the tool of contempt should be used to settle other scores.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harbhajan singh and others
Suresh Kumar and ors
M.M.S.Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
