Disposed

Rakesh Meena v. Vishnu Charan Malik

Rajasthan HC5 May 2016CCP/559/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.B. Civil Contempt Petition, the High Court examined whether the respondent was in willful disobedience of an earlier order directing the regularization of a housing scheme. The Court held that the refusal was based on a genuine belief regarding inadequate development and disposed of the petition without initiating action.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was disposed of without initiating action against the respondent, with liberty to the petitioner to seek lawful remedies.

Rakesh Meena Vs Vishnu Charan Malik — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 559/2013 Rakesh Meena vs. Shri Vishnu Charn Malik in

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12885/2011

¶6

Date of Order: 5^th May, 2016

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶8

Mr. Ravi Bhojak, for the petitioner. Mr. C.P. Sharma, for the respondents.

¶9

The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying that the respondent be punished for willful disobedience of the order dated 31.10.2011, passed in S.B. CWP No. 12885/2011. The operative portion of the order dated 31.10.2011 passed in S.B. CWP No. 12885/2011 reads as under:-

¶10

“Without going into merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to approach Secretary of the Jaipur Development Authority making representation pointing out his grievance pursuant to Tribunal's order (supra) and if made, competent authority may examine the same & ensure compliance of the Tribunal's order by taking necessary steps if there is no legal hurdle and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within two months thereafter and communicate the decision to him.”

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made representation saying that the

¶12

¶13

respondent should act in consonance with the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal on 4.3.2008.

¶14

A perusal of the order dated 4.3.2008 passed by the Tribunal reveals that the respondent was directed to regularize the housing scheme named as Ganesh Nagar-II, in case there is no legal impediment.

¶15

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the provisions and norms governing regularization of housing colony require that basic amenities ought to have been developed, as per standards laid by the JDA. The learned counsel has stated that the development in the housing colony in question was less than 10% of the norms prescribed, hence, the respondent JDA after consideration declined to regularize the housing scheme.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the stand taken by the respondent cannot be legally sustained and same is palpably wrong, as in number of colonies, where development is less than 10%, regularization orders have been already issued. It is further contended that the defence raised by the respondent cannot be termed as legal impediment.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that the respondent are in willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court as they genuinely believe that in case development in the housing scheme is less than 10% of the norms prescribed, same is good ground not to regularize the housing colony. Therefore, the present contempt petition is disposed of without initiating any action against the respondent with liberty to the

¶18

¶19

petitioner to assail the action of the respondent not to regularize housing scheme of the petitioner by taking recourse to lawful remedy available to the petitioner.

¶20

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J.

¶21

Mak/59

Rakesh Meena v. Vishnu Charan Malik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Meena v. Vishnu Charan Malik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gangaram Chaturbhuj Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Mohan Lal Vs Ram Swaroop through Lr

Raj Kumar Alias Raju Vs Jai Ram and Others

Himanshu Mathur and Ors. Vs U O R and Ors.

Hariram Vs State Excise Departmentanr

UOI and Ors. Vs State and Ors.