Dismissed

Hari Ram Son of Shri Chunni Lal Jat v. Shri Shashikant Sharma

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2023CCP/1097/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A DB Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging non-compliance with an order dated 12.05.2023 was filed. The Court held that since the impugned order did not direct the authority to decide the matter within a specific time, no contempt was alleged. Thus, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed with liberty for petitioner to approach the Court by other available remedies.

Hari Ram Son of Shri Chunni Lal Jat Vs Shri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:40131-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1097/2023

¶4

Hari Ram Son Of Shri Chunni Lal Jat, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Shivsinghpura, Post Kudli, Tehsil And District Sikar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Shashikant Sharma, Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Sikar (Raj.)

¶8

Shri Jeevan Khan, Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Sikar (Raj.) 3. Shri Hridesh Kumar Sharma, Director, Local Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Government, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta. For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

14/12/2023

¶15

This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act’) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed alleging non-compliance of directions issued by this Court on 12.05.2023 in D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.16/2023.

¶16

It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.12174/2020 was filed, wherein, on 01.12.2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Court while not entertaining the writ

¶17

[2023:RJ-JP:40131-DB]

¶18

[CCP-1097/2023]

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

petition inter-alia granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his representation before Nagar Parishad, Sikar.

¶21

Further, the Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Sikar was directed to dispose of the proceedings under Annex.1 to the writ petition within one month from the date of receipt of the order dated 01.12.2020 passed in the writ petition by a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the private respondents to participate in the proceedings.

¶22

After passing of the said order, the petitioner filed D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.211/2021 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 01.12.2020, which contempt petition came to be dismissed on 24.11.2021 as misconceived in law. 5. The authority decided the appeal on 10.08.2022 and remanded back the matter to Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Sikar.

¶23

Submissions have been made that thereafter, the petitioner moved D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.16/2023 in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.211/2021, which also came to be decided on 12.05.2023, wherein, the Court came to the conclusion that the application made seeking revival of the contempt petition was not appropriate, as the same was not a case of contempt. However, it was observed that in case decision pursuant to the remand was not taken by the Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Sikar within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the applicant would be at liberty to take such remedy, as may be available to him under law.

¶24

Based on the above direction, the present contempt petition has been filed with the submissions that the proceedings have not

¶25

(3 of 4) [CCP-1097/2023]

¶26

[2023:RJ-JP:40131-DB]

¶27

been decided, despite passage of three months from the date the order was passed by the Court on 12.05.2023 in the misc. application and, therefore, the respondents be proceeded against for non-compliance of directions issued by this Court.

¶28

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

¶29

The order dated 12.05.2023 qua which the contempt is alleged inter-alia reads as under:-

¶30

“The first contempt petition arose out of an order dated 01.12.2020 where direction was for decision within the stipulated period. Thereafter, decision was taken. Appeal was preferred and the case has been remanded. Therefore, strictly speaking, present is not a case of contempt. In case decision is not taken by the Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Sikar after remand within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the application would be at liberty to take such remedy as may be available to him under the law.

¶31

The application is, accordingly, disposed off.”

¶32

A perusal of the above order would reveal that this Court by the above order, did not give any direction to the Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Sikar to decide the matter within three months, the Court only observed that in case the decision is not taken by him within a period of three months, the applicant would be at liberty to take such remedy, as may be available to him under the law.

¶33

The remedy under the law, as directed by the Court, would by itself not include filing of a contempt petition, as under provision of Section 12 of the Act, the same can be filed on account of non-compliance of any directions.

¶34

[2023:RJ-JP:40131-DB]

¶35

[CCP-1097/2023]

¶36

As already observed hereinbefore, there is no direction by this Court to decide the matter within three months and, therefore, the above contempt petition would not be maintainable. 13. Consequently, the contempt petition is dismissed. Leaving it open for the petitioner to take such remedy other than filing the contempt petition, as may be available to him under the law.

¶37

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶38

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶39

PRADEEP KUMAR LIMBA /-22

Hari Ram Son of Shri Chunni Lal Jat v. Shri Shashikant Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram Son of Shri Chunni Lal Jat v. Shri Shashikant Sharma

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

Vishnu Khandelwal and Ors. Vs State Tourism Departmentors

Sandeep S/O Kallu Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod S/O Shri Sohan Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Madhvi Dadhichi Wife of Shri Mohit Sharma Vs Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur

Pankaj Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Kamlesh Sharma Vs Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court

Monika D/O Rajesh Kumar Jhakar Vs Rajasthan High Court