Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 416 (RAJ)

Saiyad Mukhtiyar Ahmed v. Gayatri A. Rathore

2006-02-07

PRAKASH TATIA

body2006
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The present contempt petition has been filed on the allegation that the order of this Court dated 21.04.2005 has not been complied with. Reply and additional affidavits alongwith the photographs etc. have been filed by the contemnor. 2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have already removed the obstruction (wall) against which the petitioner had his grievance and by which obstruction water flooded in the agricultural field of the petitioner. The contemnor have placed on record the photographs alongwith the affidavit in the Court today showing that they have restored the position which was in existence before filing of the writ petition and the outlets have been opened. For this now, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. 3. The other direction was given to the respondents was on the basis of the plea taken by the respondents themselves as it was stated that in case outlets will be opened, sewerage water will go into the water pond which is for the use of the public of the area. Taking note of this contention of the respondents, this Court directed the respondents to see that, in no case, polluted water should go to the pond of which water is used by the public. The respondents were directed to prepare a plan and execute the work. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that plan has not been implemented by the contemnor for which the learned Counsel for the contemnor submits that not only they have opened the outlets against which the petitioner raised grievance but they already repaired the Nala showing the photographs No. 3 to 6 submitted alongwith the additional affidavit. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, said Nala was in existence even in the year 2002 and the respondents have not repaired it. 4. It appears from the contention of the petitioner as well as from the photographs submitted by the non-petitioner that not only the outlets are opened but the water discharged Nala has already been cleared and water appears to have flowing from this Nala, therefore, the position has been restored by the respondents. 5. 4. It appears from the contention of the petitioner as well as from the photographs submitted by the non-petitioner that not only the outlets are opened but the water discharged Nala has already been cleared and water appears to have flowing from this Nala, therefore, the position has been restored by the respondents. 5. Another direction was to the respondents to see that how the relief can be granted to the petitioner of removing the water clogging in the field of the petitioner and the respondents were directed to take steps for removing the same. For this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no steps have been taken by the contemnor and water clogging is going on in the field of petitioner. In support of this, the petitioner has placed on record several photographs. These photographs were placed on record initially alongwith the contempt petition filed on 08.07.2005, therefore, petitioner also placed on record more photographs in support of this contention that still there is water clogging. The last dispute is dispute which is subject matter in the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner was due to the positive action of the respondents which has been undone by the respondents themselves. Prima facie, it appears that water clogging in the petitioners field was not due to the mere closing of the disputed outlets by the respondents but it is possible that blocking of the outlets might have aggravated the position of water clogging of the petitioners agricultural field. Therefore, for the relief of removing the water clogging from the agricultural field of the petitioner, detail factual enquiry may be needed and the interim order passed by this Court dated 21.04.2005 cannot be said to be a final relief to the petitioner because by that time, there were no factual position how the water clogging in the petitioners field is going on and if the petitioners field had problem of water clogging, otherwise then by the action of the respondents; what relief can be granted to the petitioner and whether petitioner is entitled for the relief in the writ jurisdiction are the matter which can be gone into in writ. The Court cannot pass directions or further direction in contempt proceedings. The Court can see that whether there is a wilful disobedience of the Courts order or not. The Court cannot pass directions or further direction in contempt proceedings. The Court can see that whether there is a wilful disobedience of the Courts order or not. This Court is satisfied that when petitioners initial grievance was due to the closing of the water outlets by constructing a wall by the respondents and that has been undone by the respondents themselves, it cannot be said that the respondents have any intention to disobey the Courts order. 6. In view of the above, this contempt petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if petitioner can get further relief of remedy the water clogging from his agricultural field in the writ petition, that matter can be examined in the writ petition and this order will not come in his way in any manner. Notices are discharged.