The court dismissed a contempt petition due to a disputed question of fact concerning whether respondents proceeded with construction after an interim order. The court held such facts require resolution in the main writ petition.
The contempt case is closed; petitioner is directed to seek appropriate relief in the pending main writ petition.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Contempt Case No.1270 of 2012
Date: 05-03-2013
Between:
Gangu Sanjeevaiah .. Petitioner AND M. Krishna and another .. Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Contempt Case No.1270 of 2012
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks for punishment against the respondents 1 and 2 for contempt of court for violating the interim order dated 07.08.2012 in WPMP No.31112 of 2012 in W.P.No.24374 of 2012. The respondents herein are respodnents 3 and 4 in WPMP No.31112 of 2012.
2. The petitioner contended that the petitioner and the respondents are neighbours. The respondents are the northern neighbours of the petitioner. Claiming that the respondents started construcing a new building in violation of the approved plan, the petitioner laid the writ petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the construction of respondents herein as illegal. During the pendency of the writ petition, interim roders were passed
on 07.08.2012 restraining the respondents herein from making further constructions and from creating any third party interest for a period of two weeks.
3. The petitioner contends that in spite of being informed about the interim directions of the Court, the respondents continued with the constructions. He further contended that the violation of the directions of the Court were brought to the notice of the authorities of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and that the officials of GHMC visited the premises of the respondents on 13.08.2012 and directed the respondents not to make any further cosntructions pending disposal of the writ petition. Contending that the respondents nevertheless continued the cosntruction activity and thus committed contempt of court, the present petition is laid.
4. Smt. K. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the respondents herein submitted that while the interim order was passed on 07.08.2012, the construction activity in fact concluded on 16.07.2011 and that the respondents in fact occupied the premises in May, 2012. Her claim is that the construction activity as well as the occupancy of the premises by the respondents thus was prior to the interim order and that question of the respondents violating the interim orders did not arise.
5. Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner
drew my attention to the reply of the petitioner and pointed out that named oficials of GHMC in fact directed the respodnents from making further constructions and that the claim of the respondents that the construction activity had already been concluded is not correct. Thus, a question of fact has arisen for consideration as to whether the respondents committed contempt of court or not.
6. Ordinarily, a disputed question of fact canot be entertained in the consideration of a contempt application. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court[1] . In that case, it was observed that
“It is now well settled and so also the High Court has held that the proceeding of contempt of court is sui generis. In other words, it is not strictly controlled by the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the Evidence Act. What, hwoever, applies to a proceeding of contempt of court are the principles of natural justice and those principles apply to the contempt proceeding with greater rigour than any other proceeding. Thus means that the court must follow a procedure that is fair and objective; that should cause no prejudice to the person facing the charge of contempt of court and that should follow him/her the fullest opportunity to defend himself/herself. (See Vinay Chandra Mishra,
In R e[2] and Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pande y[3] . )”
7. However, the Supreme Court did not consider that the disputed question of fact can be entertained for resolution in a contempt case. Where the petitioner contends that the respondents made construction
subsequent to the interim order and where the respondents contend that the construction as well as the occupation was prior to the interim order, I am afraid that the contempt case cannot be entertained. This contempt case, therefore, deserves to be closed.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively contended that as the main writ petition is still pending, the contempt case may be tagged to it. He apprehends that if the contempt case is closed, the respondents may go ahead with further constructions apart from the constructions already made.
9. Where the main writ petition is pending, the petitioner may seek for an appropriate relief from the court if his apprehension is well founded. So far as this contempt case is concerned, in view of the disputed question of fact whether the respondents violated the interim order or not, the contempt case does not lie. The contempt case accordingly is closed.
_________________
K.G. SHANKAR, J
Date: 05.03.2013 Isn
[1] (2009) 8 SCC 106
[2] (1995) 2 SCC 584
[3] (2004) 5 SCC 26 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1521
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a disputed question of fact regarding violation of an interim order can be entertained in a contempt of court proceeding.
Whether the contempt petition should be closed or tagged to the main writ petition due to factual disputes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High CourtReferred¶17
(2009) 8 SCC 106 · Who else cites this
Vinay Chandra Mishra In RReferred¶18
(1995) 2 SCC 584 · Who else cites this
Daroga Singh v. B.K. PandyReferred¶18
(2004) 5 SCC 26 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1521 · Who else cites this
Gangu Sanjeevaiah
M. Krishna
K.G. SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
