Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 474 (RAJ)

Suraj v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-02-11

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioners alleging willful disobedience of order which was passed way back on 18.07.2018. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that even though the appeal was dismissed, this Court had issued direction to implement the scheme with the modification as stated in the order, but till date, no steps have been taken. It is stated that even though the petition was dismissed, the occupants of Chetan Kachichi Basti have not vacated because no steps have been taken to rehabilitate those occupants in the spirit of the order passed by this Court earlier. 3. We find that an order was passed by this Court on 18.07.2018 and now contempt petition has been preferred alleging that direction contained in that order has not been complied with. The operative part of the order reads as follows: 'The appeal is therefore dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to implement the aforesaid scheme within four months from today with the modification that it would be open for the respondents to now rehabilitate the appellants / residents of the Chetan Kachchi Basti as per the last survey / verification conducted on 10.3.2017 in the flats built by the Jaipur Development authority in the BSUP Scheme of the Central Government.' 4. We find that the appeal was dismissed but a direction was issued for implementation of scheme. This Court made it clear that it would be open for the authorities to rehabilitate the residents of Chetan Kachichi Basti on the basis of last survey/verification conducted on 10.03.2017 in the flats built by Jaipur Development authority for the BSUP Scheme of the Central Government. The Court left it open to the respondents to consider the issue of rehabilitation of the residents of Chetan Kachichi Basti. The contempt petition has been filed after about two and a half years seeking initiation of contempt proceedings. 5. The order passed by this Court indicates that the authorities were required to take into consideration the aspect of rehabilitation. The order reads that it would be open for the respondents to rehabilitate. That means that it was left open for the authorities to consider. 6. In the context of the aforesaid background, instead of issuing notice at this stage, we direct the petitioners to approach the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater. The order reads that it would be open for the respondents to rehabilitate. That means that it was left open for the authorities to consider. 6. In the context of the aforesaid background, instead of issuing notice at this stage, we direct the petitioners to approach the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater. The authority shall apply its mind, collect the necessary information and communicate to the petitioners by specific order as to whether the possibility of rehabilitation was worked out and if so, what steps have been taken. It would be obligatory on the part of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater to pass speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of submission of the application by the petitioners. 7. Contempt petition is disposed off, at this stage, with liberty to revive.