Dismissed

Vijay Data v. Vaibhav Galriya and Anr.

Rajasthan HC23 Feb 2018CCP/54/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed three connected contempt petitions filed against officers of the Jaipur Development Authority. It held the petitions were gross abuse of process, noting the petitioner himself was a respondent in a Supreme Court judgment that quashed the policy underlying his claim, rendering his current action baseless.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petitions dismissed; Cost of Rs. Two Lakh imposed on the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Vijay Data Vs Vaibhav Galriya and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

(1) S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 54 / 2018

¶3

Vijay Data S/o Late Shri Niranjan Lal Data (Adopted of Late Shri Gangadeen Data), R/o Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayanand Marg, Alwar

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Vaibhav Galriya, Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

¶7

Purshottam Biyani, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

(2) S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 55 / 2018

¶11

Vijay Data S/o Late Shri Niranjan Lal Data, (Adopted S/o Late Shri Gangadeen Data), R/o Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayanand Marg, Alwar.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Vaibhav Galriya, Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

¶15

Purshottam Biyani, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

Connected With

¶18

(3) S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 46 / 2018

¶19

Vijay Data S/o Late Shri Niranjan Lal Data, (Adopted S/o Late Shri Gangadeen Data), R/o Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayanand Marg, Alwar-301001 (rajasthan)

¶20

----Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

Vaibhav Galriya, Commissioner, Jaipur Development, Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

¶23

Purshottam Biyani, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

----Respondents

(2 of 5)

[CCP-54/2018]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amol Vyas, Adv.

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶29

Judgment / Order

¶30

23/02/2018

¶31

While haring the aforesaid Contempt Petition No.54/2018 & 55/2018, it was informed that this Court has issued notice in one other identical Contempt Petition No.46/2018 and, therefore, the Contempt Petition No.46/2018 was also ordered to be listed in complimentary cause list and all the three contempt petitions are being disposed of.

¶32

The petitioner, by way of the aforesaid contempt petitions, submits that in terms of the order passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6901/2008, 2076/2009 & 2549/2009 submitted representation to the Jaipur Development Authority but it has failed to take decision on the representation and therefore, the contempt is prima-facie made out as against the officers of the Jaipur Development Authority for which notice be issued to them.

¶33

Having gone through the order passed by this Court, this Court finds that no direction of such a nature were issued by the Court to make representation to the Jaipur Development Authority or allowing the petitioner to make representation to the Jaipur Development Authority. In fact, the Court has noted the submissions of the Jaipur Development Authority which had come in writ petition challenging the order passed by the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur wherein directions were issued by the Tribunal for consideration of case of

¶34

(3 of 5)

¶35

[CCP-54/2018]

¶36

the petitioner herein in reference to the Circular dated 06/12/2001. The Court has noted that the Supreme Court has already quashed the policy decision dated 06/12/2001 as void abinitio.

¶37

Learned counsel submits that in the judgment passed in the case of Narpat Singh Vs. Jaipur Development Authority & anr.: AIR 2002 SC 2036, an observation has been made that the Jaipur Development Authority would allot a plot of 250 square yards to Narpat Singh as was similarly done to others and since the petitioner has purchased the said plot, he has stepped into the shoes of Narpat Singh and therefore, he should be allotted a plot of 250 square yards.

¶38

This Court further finds that counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the appeals pending before the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal and the High Court simply granted liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate course in reference to the judgment in the case of Narpat Singh or as per the legal provisions.

¶39

Learned counsel further points out that he had filed another writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.15324/2017 regarding non-consideration of his representation wherein the Court observed that if compliance has not been made, no one precluded the petitioner to avail remedy under the Contempt of Courts Act. The writ petition was however dismissed with liberty to pursue other remedy as available to him.

¶40

In the aforesaid background, when this Court examines case of the petitioner relating to the respondents’ having committed

¶41

(4 of 5)

¶42

[CCP-54/2018]

¶43

any contempt, this Court finds that the contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner are nothing short gross abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner-Vijay Data was one of he respondents in the civil appeal preferred by the Jaipur Development Authority before the Supreme Court judgment reported in 2011(12) SCC 94. In the said judgment, the aforesaid policy of 06/12/2001 was quashed. It is under the said policy alone that the Jaipur Development Authority had taken a decision to allot a plot of 250 square yards in other schemes of the Jaipur Development Authority besides giving compensation amount. In view of the said decision taken by the Jaipur Development Authority as per the guidelines dated 06/12/2001 having been specifically quashed by the Supreme Court in the case of the petitioner himself, he cannot take an umbrage on the basis of an earlier judgment passed in the case of Narpat Singh (supra).

¶44

This Court finds that the passing observations made in the case of Narpat Singh (supra) would not create any right in favour of the petitioner, moreover when it has heavily come down against the State for allotting plots in view of the compensation while deciding the case as against the petitioner himself.

¶45

The present proceedings initiated in the garb that representation was directed to be decided by the Jaipur Development Authority is wholly misconceived. As noted above, there was no direction issued by this Court for making any representation or directing the petitioner therein to decide representation of the petitioner herein.

¶46

In the light of the above observations, all these three

¶47

(5 of 5)

¶48

[CCP-54/2018]

¶49

contempt petitions are dismissed and taking into consideration the manner in which the litigation has been taken up by the petitioner, this Court imposes a cost of Rs. Two Lakh on the petitioner which shall be deposited by him with the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur.

¶50

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J.

¶51

Raghu/72-74

Vijay Data v. Vaibhav Galriya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Data v. Vaibhav Galriya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramesh Chand Vs State and Ans

Mukesh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Banwari Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mohammad Umar Vs Anwar Husain and Anr.