Title: VIREN SINGH versus MADHUP VYASF & ORS.
+ CONT.CAS(C) 474/2018
Decided on- 13 December 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 11 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondent officials have committed contempt of the order/directions dated 30.11.2017 passed by this Court in the writ petition W.P. (C) 7821/2017 and subsequent direc tions contained in the order dated 26.02.2018 in CONT. CAS (C) 138/2018.
The petitioner acquired ownership title of terrace/roof rights of the suit property from his sister, who was the owner with terrace/roof rights of the second floor of this property. The respondent declined the sanction of the building plan for the 3rd floor on this property, stating that floor-wise sanction/regularisation could not be approved.
The same was challenged in the writ petition W.P. (C) 7821/2017, and the Court passed directions on 30.11.2017, setting aside the communication dated 19.07.2017 and quashing the same. The Court di- rected the respondent to process the application of the applicant for sanction of the building plans within four weeks.
The petitioner filed a contempt petition (CONT. CAS (C) 138/2018) alleging non-compliance of the order dated 30.11.2017 by the officials of the respondent. The respondent’s counsel submitted that the application for sanction of the building plan was under consideration and the decision would be conveyed to the petitioner.
If the petitioner is still aggrieved by any inaction on the part of the respondents, liberty is granted to the petitioner to revive this contempt petition.
Issues framed by court:
- Whether the respondents have committed contempt of the directions of this Court?
Laws Involved:
Section 11 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction.
Section 12 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Punishment for contempt of court.
Section 347B (f) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,1957- Destruction of infectious huts or sheds (1) Where the destruction of any hut or shed is in the opinion of the Commissioner necessary to prevent the spread of any dangerous disease, the Commissioner may by notice in writing require the owner to destroy the hut or shed and the materials thereof within such time as may be specified in the notice. (2) Where the Commissioner is satisfied that the destruction of any hut or shed is immediately necessary for the purpose of preventing the spread of any dangerous disease, he may order the owner or occupier of the hut or shed to destroy the same forthwith or may himself cause it to be destroyed after giving not less than six hours’ notice to the owner or occupier. (3) Compensation may be paid by the Commissioner, in any case which he thinks fit, to any person who sustains substantial loss by the destruction of any such hut or shed, but, except as so allowed by the Commissioner, no claim for compensation shall lie for any loss or damage caused by any exercise of the power conferred by this section.
Courts Judgement and Analysis:
The Court finds the respondents guilty of committing contempt of the directions of this Court.
The present case falls under Section 11 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. which deals with civil contempt. It requires a demonstration of wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court with a calculated action and evil motive on the part of the contemnor.
The Court has considered the directions issued in the judgment or order and finds that the respon dents have failed to comply with the same. The rejection letter dated 25.04.2018 demonstrates a complete lack of sincerity, honesty, and fairness.
The Court also notes that the remedy under Section 347B (f) of the DMC Act is not applicable in this case.
Conclusion:
The Court held that the respondents have committed contempt of the directions of this Court. The matter will be further heard on the next date of hearing, and a status-cum-compliance report has been ordered to be filed by that date. A copy of this order will be given to the learned counsel for the respondent officials for necessary compliance.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
