Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GUMAN MAL versus P.C. BALAI & ANR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GUMAN MAL v P.C. BALAI & ANR - WCP Case No. 114 of 2003 [2006] RD-RJ 118 (24 January 2006)

SBCivil Contempt Petition No.114/2003 in

SBCivil Misc.Application No.75/02 in

SBCivil Writ Petition No.201/1991

(Guman Mal v. Shri P.C.Balai & Anr.) 25th January, 2006

Date of Order ::

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. K.N.Joshi, for the petitioner.

Mr. N.M.Lodha, Addl.Advocate General. ....

The petitioner, a trustee of Sukhraj

Babulalji Nahar Charitable Trust, Bhinmal, preferred the present contempt petition to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for deliberate and wilful non-compliance of the directions given by this

Court vide order dated 2.1.2003 in SBCivil

Misc.Application No.75/2002 in SBCivil Writ Petition

No.201/1991.

In SBCivil Writ Petition No.201/1991 an order was passed with consent of the parties as under:-

"Heard.

By consent of parties, the petition is disposed off in the following terms:- 1.The petitioner shall be permitted to resume construction of the incomplete structure in accordance with the plan already submitted by him and approved by the Government. 2.The construction shall be under-taken by the petitioner under the control and

Supervision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bhinmal and be completed as far as possible within six months. 3.On completion of the construction as per plan, the petitioner -Trust, shall hand over possession of the entire complete structure to the State of Rajasthan, if so desired, through the Hon'ble Chief Minister."

Compliance of the aforesaid order was not made, therefore, a misc. application was filed by the petitioner which came to be decided by order dated 2.1.2003. The order dated 2.1.2003 reads as under:-

"The instant Misc. Application has been filed raising the grievance that the construction as per the previous orders of the Court could not be completed and time should be extended. However, Shri Vyas learned Addl. Advocate-General has raised the preliminary objection and shown certain documents that the possession of the building had already been taken. However, it is not for this Court to enter into the controversy whether the possession has been taken of not, nor it is required to go into legality of the said issue and to close the chapter, it is desirable that if the petitioner wants any kind of repairing or construction as per the sanctioned plan readwith order of this Court dated 7.11.2001, the learned District Collector is requested to permit the applicant to build the same under his supervision by appointing an officer of his choice. If the applicant wants to have any kind of opening/inauguration of the building he may do so with consultation of District

Collector.

With these observations, the application stands disposed of finally."

The petitioner in contempt petition has stated that the respondents have neither appointed any officer to supervise repairing/construction work and also not permitting to complete the work enabling the trust for opening/inaugurating the building.

A reply to the contempt petition is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations levelled in contempt petition. Certain additional submissions are also filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the District

Administration is having no objection if the petitioner (trust) carries out repair work of building, after giving necessary details about the work required to be executed.

Heard counsel for the parties.

I am of the considered opinion that present one is not a case fit for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. However, compliance of the directions given by this Court are required to be ensured in its words and spirit. The petitioner is a trustee of a charitable trust which is constructing a building for charitable purposes. The anxiety of the trust to get the work completed at earliest can be well understood. It is in interest of public at large to get the proposed work finished, so it may be utilised by the people.

Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case I consider it appropriate to dispose of present contempt petition with a direction to the

Collector, Jalore to appoint a competent officer to supervise construction/repairing work required to be made in the building concerned within a period of 15 days from today. The information with regard to appointment of such officer shall be given to the petitioner and also to the trust. The Trust shall in consultation with the supervisor appointed by the

Collector, Jalore start construction/repairing work and will complete the same within a period of one year from the date of appointment of supervisor by the

Collector, Jalore. The trust as well as the District

Administration are expected to cooperate each other in the pious charitable work undertaken by them.

The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.