Dismissed

Raj Kumar Nayak S/O Puran Mal Nayak v. Shri Rishab Dev Ola, Executive Officer

Rajasthan HC20 Aug 2019CCP/1526/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a 2016 High Court order regarding encroachment removal. Court held prior order lacked time-bound direction; willing to entertain fresh petition on inaction. Contempt petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; liberty taken to file fresh petition challenging inaction.

Raj Kumar Nayak S/O Puran Mal Nayak Vs Shri Rishab Dev… — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1526/2017

¶3

Raj Kumar Nayak S/o Puran Mal Nayak, aged 41 years, B/c Nayak (SC) By Occupation Petty Shop Keeper But, Mainly And Actively Involved In Social Services And Social Worker, R/o Ward No. 19 (Old No.9) Near Police Station Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Rishab Dev Ola, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, (Municipal Board) Pilani, District Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶7

1/1. Miss Sarita Badsara, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika (Municipal Board), Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶8

1/2. Anil Kumar, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, (Municipal Board), Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶9

1/3. Rakesh Ola, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, (Municipal Board), Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Desh Raj Kalwania For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

20/08/2019

¶15

For stated reasons, the application bearing inward no.1 dated 30.07.2019 filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is allowed. The persons as prayed for are ordered to be impleaded as party-respondents. The amended

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CCP-1526/2017]

¶18

cause-title is ordered to be taken on record. Office to place the same at its appropriate place.

¶19

With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for

¶20

hearing.

¶21

This contempt petition has been filed alleging noncompliance of the order of this Court dated 24.10.2016, which reads as under:-

¶22

“1. The petitioner will approach respondent No.2 by way of an appropriate application in view of affidavit and reply stated as under:-

¶23

“The Municipal Board, Pilani being a State Authority is duty bound to remove any encroachment upon the public land in question or in the land vested with the Municipal Board. But the answering respondent has not received any representation or any complaint whatsoever on behalf of the resident of the said locality situated in the land in dispute.”

¶24

If such an application is made, the respondent will take immediate action and if action is not taken, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 before this Court.

¶25

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.”

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner has submitted an application to the respondent Municipal Board in terms of the aforesaid order, the respondents have not taken any action for removal of encroachments.

¶27

A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that this Court in para 2 thereof required the respondents to take immediate action if an application is submitted by the petitioner but at the same time also further observed that if the action is not taken it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the inaction on the part of the respondent no.2, before this Court. There is no definite direction for removal of encroachment in a time bound manner. Therefore,

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CCP-1526/2017]

¶30

the contempt petition cannot be entertained muchless for alleged willful or deliberate contempt of any part of the aforesaid order. It however goes without saying that the petitioner, if so advised, can file and maintain a fresh petition challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent no.2 before this Court.

¶31

With that liberty to the petitioner, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notices stand discharged.

¶32

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶33

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶34

//Jaiman//13

Raj Kumar Nayak S/O Puran Mal Nayak v. Shri Rishab Dev Ola, Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Nayak S/O Puran Mal Nayak v. Shri Rishab Dev Ola, Executive Officer

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

Dinesh Kumar Jangid S/O Shri Sitaram Jangid, Vs Charles Santosh Ratnasmy, Principal Chief

Mohammed Salim S/O Shri Noor Mohammed Vs Union of India

Kishan Lal Saini and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dhananjay Singh S/O Shri Kashinath B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Raj Khadi and Village Indu Vs Smt Urmila Jain Andors

Pankaj Ghasal S/O Sh. Mool Chand Vs State of Rajasthan