SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 992

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, J.
T.C. GUPTA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9476 OF 2013 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.22500 of 2012)
Decided On : 25-10-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not open to Court to subsequently interpret its order to hold someone guilty of contempt.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - High Court directing maintenance of status quo as to allotment - No allotment made - Licence to plotted colonies granted - Not open to High Court to interpret its order to include licenses under the Haryana Act of 1975 - Further, the contemnor tendering unconditional and unqualified apology - Such apology ought not be rejected - Also, writ petition gving rise to contempt proceeding dismissed by High Court - This is relevant circumstance to drop contempt proceeding. (Para 10 and 11)

        (2011) 6 SCC 86 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        The High Court, in a PIL passed interim order staying all development orders. The appellant passed an order during the period of stay and was therefore held to committed contempt of High Court.

        Accordingly High Court passed orders for his personal appearance for hearing on the quantum of punishment.

       Finding of the Court:

        High Court's order was not violated.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By its order dated 23.07.2012 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has found the appellant guilty of commission of contempt in respect of an order dated 18.08.2011 passed in Civil Misc. No.10994 of 2011 arising out of Writ Petition (C) No.11684 of 2011. Consequently, the appellant was summoned to appear before the High Court on 30.07.2012 for hearing before pronouncement of order on the punishment to be imposed. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

3. The facts that will be necessary to be noticed are as follows:

The respondent No.1 herein, as the writ petitioner, instituted a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court (C.W.P. No.11684 of 2011) raising a grievance with regard to the Final Development Plan 2025-AD for Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex published vide Notification No. CCP (NCR)/FDP(G)/2011/1386 dated 24.05.2011. Specifically, it was contended that Sectors 63-A and Sector 67-A have been carved out in the Development Plan contrary to the Zoning Regulations which are required to be followed. The Final Development Plan, it may be noticed, is prepared under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963).

4. Notice on the writ petition was issued by the High Court on 8.07.2011. Thereafter, on 11.08.2011 Civil Misc. Application No.10994 of 2011 was filed before the High Court for stay of the implementation of the Final Development Plan “in view of contemplated grant of licence to the colonizers/developers/societies.” On 18.08.2011 the following order was passed by the High Court in C.M.No.10994 of 2011:

“Notice for the date fixed.

Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. A.G., Haryana, present in Court, accepts notice.

In the meanwhile, there will be status quo as to allotment as on today.”

5. Though an application to vacate the aforesaid interim order was filed by the Respondents in the writ petition the interim order was neither vacated nor modified by the High Court and continued to remain in force. While the matter was so situated the appellant who then serving as the Director General, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, had granted a licence dated 28.12.2011 for setting up of a Residential Plotted Colony on land measuring 100.262 acres falling in Sector 63-A of the Gurgaon-Manesar. The aforesaid grant of licence [under the Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975] (hereinafter referred to as ‘Haryana Act of 1975’) by the appellant had led to the institution of the contempt proceeding in question which was registered as C.O.C.P. No.120 of 2012. The said action was initiated on the basis that the grant of the licence dated 28.12.2011 by the appellant is in violation of the order of the Court dated 18.08.2011.

6. The appellant had filed his response in the contempt proceeding contending that no allotment was made by him or by any other authority so as to constitute violation of the order of the High Court dated 18.08.2011. The appellant, in his reply, further stated that in every residential sector, a maximum of 20% of the net planned area was earmarked for group housing and 3.5% for commercial purposes whereas for plotted residential colonies there was no restriction except the requirement of a minimum area of 100 acres. It was also stated that while the applications for group housing and commercial activities was to be accorded priority on the basis of date of application the same was not so in respect of applications for plotted colonies which are to be considered and licences are to be granted on fulfilment of the conditions prescribed. It was further stated by the appellant that though not specifically prohibited by the order dated 18.08.2011, out of sheer deference, no licence has been granted or contemplated for group housing colony/commercial colony as such licences can be granted upto a maximum limit of the net planned areas. Licences for plotted colonies, according








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top