Dismissed

Devender Mishtra v. Hardayal Singh Maan and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2013COCP/2336/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed a contempt petition filed by the petitioner regarding interference in Shiv Mandir premises. Holding that no absolute right was conferred by a prior order and noting that security was already provided, the Court deemed the petition not maintainable, advising the petitioner to avail other alternative remedies.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was relegated to avail any alternative remedy; security was already directed to be provided by SSP.

Devender Mishtra Vs Hardayal Singh Maan… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

COCP No. 2336 of 2013

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

COCP No. 2336 of 2013

¶6

Date of Decision: September 6, 2013

Devender Mishra

…..Petitioner

Vs.

Hardayal Singh Mann and others

¶11

…..Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

-.-

¶16

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Vide order dated February 21, 2011, a direction was issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court to the Commissioner, Patiala Division to constitute an Inquiry Committee comprising officers posted outside District Patiala for a fact finding inquiry to determine the allegations of the petitioner that he was being ousted in an unauthorized manner from the premises of Shiv Mandir in Village Kehri Gujran, near Officers Colony, Patiala.

¶18

Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.09 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

COCP No. 2336 of 2013

¶20

[2]

¶21

Aggrieved by the non-compliance of the order, the petitioner filed a contempt petition No.1614 of 2011 in which a report regarding the status of the inquiry was directed to be placed on record on May 3, 2012. It appears that the matter having been compromised vide annexure P-8, the petitioner had withdrawn the contempt petition.

¶22

The present contempt petition has been filed complaining about interference by the private respondents.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the order dated February 21, 2011 and the subsequent events and I am of the opinion that vide order dated February 21, 2011, no absolute right was conferred upon the petitioner, however, as an interim measure his possession in the Mandir had been protected simultaneously directing the Commissioner to constitute an Inquiry Committee to conduct a fact finding inquiry by joining the petitioner. The report was required to be prepared and submitted before the Court. The said report was submitted in the Court probably in favour of the petitioner. Report dated December 7, 2011 was prepared and submitted in the Court but a copy of the same has not been placed on record but counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the report in the Court which indicates that possession of the petitioner stands established from the said report. The allegations of consumption of liquor and meat have been found to be false against the petitioner. There are certain observations against the son of the petitioner namely, Dinesh Mishra.

¶24

Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.09 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

COCP No. 2336 of 2013

¶26

[3]

¶27

The private respondents seem to be having a controversy with the petitioner. The remedy available with the petitioner is to protect his possession and restrain anyone from dispossessing him in an illegal manner by establishing that he has got a better possessory title and right to remain in possession and enjoy uninterrupted possession of the portion in his occupation in the Shiv Mandir aforesaid. The circumstances do not warrant initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents at this stage as the SSP, Patiala has already been directed to provide adequate security to the petitioner and his family and the temple properties vide order dated February 21, 2011 which has been made absolute vide order dated March 17, 2011. Relegating the petitioner to avail any other alternative remedy available to him, this petition is disposed of as not maintainable.

¶28

In case any of the private respondents violates the terms of compromise annexure P-8, it will be open to the petitioner to seek the performance of the acts compromised by the private respondents.

¶29

September 6, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

¶30

Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.09 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Devender Mishtra v. Hardayal Singh Maan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devender Mishtra v. Hardayal Singh Maan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarabjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sunita Sapra Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors.

Gurmeet Singh Vs Defence Research and Development (Drdo) and Ors.

Sarla Rani Vs Ravneet Kaur

Sulakhan Mal Vs Rajpal Meena and Anr.

Mukesh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.