High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raja Ram Alias Vijai Shankar Tiwari v. Addl. Commissioner & Others - WRIT - C No. 157 of 2005  RD-AH 5550 (10 November 2005)
Court no. 50
CIVIL MISC. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2005
Aminuddin Vs. Vijay Pratap Singh & others.
Hon�??ble D.P. Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
From the record, it is apparent that the applicant runs two roadside eating joints commonly known as �??Dhaba.�?? One is situated at khasra no. 111 in village Khera Bujurg, Pargana, Tehsil and District Badaun and another at Gata No. 394 situated in Aarifpur Nawada adjoining a police out post. Both the Dhabas are within one k.m. of each other (hereinafter referred to as the first and the second dhaba respectively). After obtaining approval of a construction map from the competent authority the applicant established Dhaba no. 1, however the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 allegedly demanded illegal gratification from the applicant and on his refusal, they threatened demolition forcing him to file a suit no. 95 of 2004 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the aforesaid property. An application for temporary injunction was also moved. A report of the Court Amin was also obtained and the Civil Judge vide its order dated 22.5.2004 restrained the defendants from interfering in the possession of the applicant over the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. However, on 30.11.2004, the first Dhaba was partially demolished in spite of the interim injunction, and the applicant was also detained in the Police Station where he remained till the evening. It is further alleged that in spite of being confronted with the injunction order, the opposite parties did not relent and continued with the demolition. Further, it is alleged, that the opposite parties illegally sought to close the staircase and the door of the second Dhaba and they also threatened to demolish the remnants of the first Dhaba. This forced the applicant to file writ petition no. 52934 of 2004 with regard to the first Dhaba and writ petition no. 52932 of 2004 with regard to the second Dhaba. A Division Bench entertaining the writ petition passed the following order in writ petition no. 52932 of 2004 on 13.12.2004.
�??Until further orders of this court, the respondents are restrained from making any construction over the land in dispute and will ensure that the petitioner�??s egress and ingress on the passage in question is not hindered�??
and the following order was passed in the second writ petition on the same date to the following effect.
�??Until further orders of this court the respondents are restrained from demolishing the Dhaba constructed by the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to repair that portion which has been demolished by the respondents.�??
It is alleged that in spite of the aforesaid interim orders the first Dhaba was demolished on 15.12.2004 and the staircase and the approach of the second Dhaba was also closed between 15.12.2004 and 21.12.2004 and further constructions were raised by the opposite parties. These are the basic allegations in this contempt petition.
By a detailed order dated 6.7.2005 the following three charges were framed against each of the opposite party nos. 1,3,4,5 and 6.
1. �??You Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun show cause why you should not be tried and punished for having violated injunction order dated 22.5.2004 granted by Civil Judge (J.D.), Badaun passed in suit no. 95 of 2004 by illegally demolishing the constructions of the applicant.
Further You Sri Vijay Pratap Singh the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun show cause why you should not be tried and punished under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for having willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 13.12.2004 passed in writ petition no. 52932 of 2004.
Further You Sri Vijay Pratap Singh the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun show cause why you should not be tried and punished under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for having willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 13.12.2004 passed in writ petition no. 52934 of 2004.�??
Identical charges were framed against the other opposite parties no. 3,4,5 and 6.
After hearing the parties at length, by an order dated 6.10.2005 a learned Advocate of this court was appointed as a Commissioner to submit a report with regard to the questions framed in the order. The learned Commissioner has submitted his report, which is on record. The parties have been heard on the report also.
Even though there is some violation, it does not appear to be willful or deliberate, thus, none of the opposite parties can be punished on the charges framed. However, the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 are cautioned to be careful while dealing with orders of either in High Court or the Subordinate Courts.
For the reasons given above, notices are discharged, contempt petition is rejected and consigned to records.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.