In this contempt petition, petitioner alleged disobedience of an order preventing illegal mining. The court held that allegations were uncertain and refused to conduct a factual inquiry, dismissing the petition while allowing other legal recourse.
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.
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 287/2013
1
8
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 287/2013 Shyam Singh vs Mr. Ashok Bhandhary & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 3rd March 2014
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Mr. Firoz Khan for the petitioner.
<><><>
By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks to allege willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed on 17.08.2004 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 684/2004.
The order dated 17.08.2004, in its entirety, reads as
under:
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
From the reply filed by the State it appears that illegal mining was taking place in the year 1999. As per the reply, now no mining operation is being done in the hill area of village Shiv.
Having regard to the fact that in the year 1999 illegal mining operation was taking place, and without going into the veracity of the assertion of the respondents, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to prevent any illegal mining operations in village Shiv. We order accordingly. The State and its functionaries, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 shall also prevent illegal felling of trees.
With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.”
The petitioner now seeks to submit with reference to a report made by the Land Records Inspector (Annexure-6) that some illegal mining activities are taking place at the area in question. In the report as referred, only this much has been indicated by the concerned inspector that there had been
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 287/2013
2
some mining activities carried out before rains and during night hours. Nothing of specification is available in this report.
Apart from the above, even if the petitioner seeks to assert that some illegal activities have been carried out by some person which stand contra the order of this Court, this assertion would entail an inquiry into the facts and we find no reason that such an inquiry be carried out in this contempt petition moved on uncertain nature allegations.
In the totality of the circumstances, even while not persuaded to take up the matter in the contempt jurisdiction, we consider it proper to leave it open for the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law inviting adjudication on factual aspects.
Subject to the observations foregoing, this contempt petition stands dismissed
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
sudhir
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow a contempt petition based on uncertain allegations of illegal mining without holding a factual inquiry.
The propriety of dismissing a contempt petition absent a prima facie violation of a previous court order.
Shyam Singh
Mr. Ashok Bhandhary & Ors.
DINESH MAHESHWARI
BANWARI LAL SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
