Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 30 (HP)

HARI DUTT SHARMA v. A. K. GOSWAMI

2001-03-02

C.K.THAKKER

body2001
JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate order making grievance that the order passed by this Court against the respondents on July 25, 1995, in Civil Writ Petition No. 1012 of 1994 has not been complied with and thereby they have wilfully and intentionally disobeyed and flouted the direction of this Honble Court.A prayer is, therefore, made to take appropriate proceedings against the erring officers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and to pass an appropriate order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that residents of villages Kharyar, Biuns Ka Hara, Khainta, Sunarry, Kot, Nauti and Chanhol and Katal, made a representation on December 3, 1994, to Honble the Chief Justice of this Court, seeking completion of partially constructed road known as Sukhi Johari to Katal, by treating the said representation as a writ petition in Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The said representation was taken by this Court on its own motion (suo motu) by registering it civil writ petition No. 1012 of 1994. A Division Bench of this Court on July 25, 1995, disposed of the said petition. In the operative part of the order, the following direction was issued: "In view of the above statement on behalf of the State Government, we direct the State Government-respondents to immediately initiate the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and complete the acquisition proceedings as well as construction of the remaining portion of the road within two years from today. It is stated that the length of the road will be about eight kilometers. The petitioner may be informed of this order." 3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per direction issued by this Court, the road was not constructed and thus the respondents have not complied with the order of this Court. It is further stated by the petitioners that an application being CMP No. 634 of 1997 in CWP No. 1012 of 1994 for extension of time was filed by the respondents which was also granted by this Court and the time was extended upto July 24, 2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither extension was sought thereafter nor the order of the Court had been complied with. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither extension was sought thereafter nor the order of the Court had been complied with. The respondents, thereby, have committed contempt of this Court and proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are required to be taken for deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 4. Notice was issued on December 8, 2000 by this Court and it was made returnable after eight weeks. Pursuant to the notice, the respondents appeared. Affidavits-in-reply have been filed by both the respondents. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 1 Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, it was stated at the outset that the replying respondent tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology. He has also stated that he upholds the dignity and majesty of this Court and believes in maintaining purity in the system of administration of justice. It was then stated that he has made all efforts to comply with the order of this Honble Court but in spite of such efforts, the work could not be completed and the construction of about 1 Km. is not over for the circumstances pointed out in the affidavit of Engineer-in-Chief, H.P. PWD, Shimla. Thus, there was no intentional and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court and a prayer is made to withdraw/discharge notice issued by this Court. 5. A detailed affidavit is filed by respondent No. 2 Engineer-in-Chief. He also, at the outset, stated that he tenders unconditional and unqualified apology irrespective of the circumstances under which, the work could not be completed. He has, however, narrated the circumstances in which the work could not be completed. In Paragraphs 2 to 5 of preliminary submissions, he has stated about the steps taken by the authorities to implement the order of the Court. It is also stated that in spite of extension of time, in view of filing of several suits by the residents of village Gandhole, certain actions could not be taken. The deponent has mentioned that a Notification under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was also issued on February 28, 2001. He submitted that thus there was no deliberate and intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Court and prayed for discharge of notice. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The deponent has mentioned that a Notification under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was also issued on February 28, 2001. He submitted that thus there was no deliberate and intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Court and prayed for discharge of notice. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly, in the light of the affidavits filed by the respondents (Chief Secretary as well as the Engineer-in-Chief), it cannot be said that the respondents have intentionally and deliberately disobeyed or flouted the direction of this Honble Court. On the contrary, they have stated the facts and highlighted the circumstances, under which they could not complete the work. From the said circumstances, it is clear that necessary steps were taken by the authorities to implement the order passed by this Court. Extension was also sought, which was granted upto July 24, 2000. It was because of filing of certain suits by the residents of village Gandhole that the work could not be completed within time but it cannot be said that there was intentional or deliberate flouting of the order by the respondents or their officers. 7. At the time of hearing of the petition, the learned Advocate General has also placed on record a Circular issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on February 28, 2001, relating to execution and implementation of orders passed. by Courts/Tribunals. It reads as under : "I am directed to say that it has come to the notice of the State Government that timely action for implementation of the orders/directions of the Courts/Tribunals are not being taken in many cases, and as a result the very objective of providing relief/giving timely justice is defeated. You are requested to take action for implementation of orders/ directions of the Courts and the Tribunals strictly within the time frame so stipulated in such orders/directions. In case implementation of such orders/directions requires more time than stipulated on account of some unavoidable reasons, request shall be made to the concerned Court/Tribunal for seeking extension of time well in advance before expiry of such dead line prescribed by the Courts/Tribunals. It will be the responsibility of concerned Administrative Secretary/Heads of Departments/Chief Executives of the Boards/Corporations to ensure implementation of the above directions of the State Government." 8. It will be the responsibility of concerned Administrative Secretary/Heads of Departments/Chief Executives of the Boards/Corporations to ensure implementation of the above directions of the State Government." 8. From the said Circular also, it is clear that steps have been ken to comply with the orders passed by competent Courts/Tribunals, which is expected of an authority working in a democratic set up governed by Rule of Law. 9. In the light of all the facts and surrounding circumstances, my considered opinion, apology deserves to be accepted and no further proceedings are called for in the matter. The matter deserves be finalised and closed. 10. In the result, the petition is disposed of. Notice issued to respondents on December 8, 2000 is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of. -