Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PANKAJ BHANDARI, ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, JJ.
Milap Chand Dandia S/o Late Shri Gendilal Ji Dandia – Petitioner
Versus
D.B. Gupta, Chief Secretary, Jaipur – Respondent
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1503 of 2019, D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No. 20267 of 2017
Decided On : 22-03-2022
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vimal Chand Chaudhary, Mr. Yogesh Tailor, Mr. Diwakar Khaldwa.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. Siddhant Jain.
Headnote:
Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Amendment Act, 2017 - Section 7 BB, 11(2), 11 - State shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of laws within territory of India - Supply of services and not as a supply of goods - Every order made under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament - Appointment of Arbitrators - Petitioner has filed this contempt petition with prayer – Held, Court is both accuser as well as judge of accusation – Court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals - It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise - Arises that contemnor must be punished - Punishment under law of Contempt is called for when lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority - To take action in an unclear case is to make law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. For compliance of the judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20267/2017, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition with the following prayer:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this contempt petition with heavy cost and the Respondent/contemnor may kindly be punished. The direction may also be issued to the contemnor to comply the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court and to withdraw the facilities from the Ex-Chief Ministers, which has provided under provisions of Section 7 BB and Section 11(2) of the Rajasthan Ministers and Salaries (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Act No. 30/2017) with means profit. The arrears may also be recovered from the Ex-Chief Ministers.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 7 BB and Section 11 of the Rajasthan Ministers’ Salaries (Amendment) Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’) which provides that former Chief Ministers shall get for the remainder of their lives, a government residence, a car for their family members, telephone and a staff of 10 persons including a driver.
3. After hearing both the parties, the Court allowed the writ petition on 04.09.2019 and declared that Section 7 BB and 11(2) of the Act of 2017 as arbitrary, contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. On 23.10.2019, the petitioner submitted this contempt petition before this Court alleging that despite expiry of more than a month, no steps were taken by the respondents to get the possession of the house of the former Chief Ministers and withdraw the facilities provided to them under the provisions of Section 7 BB and Section 11 (2) of the Act of 2017. Hence, such act of the respondents amounts to contempt of this Court’s order dated 04.09.2019.
5. The respondents in the reply submitted that against the judgment dated 04.09.2019, the State Government submitted Special Leave to Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed and immediately thereafter in compliance of the judgment dated 04.09.2019, the staff of the Ex-Chief Ministers Smt. Vasundhara Raje and Shri Jagannath Pahadia was withdrawn vide order dated 19.01.2020.
6. And on 21.01.2020, the Ex-Chief Minister Shri Jagannath Pahadia vacated the Bungalow No. 5 Hospital Road, Jaipur and handed over its vacant possession to the Public Works Department. It is stated in the reply that the Ex-Chief Minister Smt. Vasundhara Raje continues to occupy the Bungalow being entitled for it as Member of Legislative Assembly.
7. It is stated in the reply that both Ex-Chief Ministers Smt. Vasundhara Raje and Shri Jagannath Pahadia have returned the government vehicles along with the services of the drivers and the same have been deposited in the State Motor Garage on 19.01.2020.
8. It is also stated in the reply that the facilities provided to former Chief Ministers in terms of the provisions of Section 7 BB and Section 11 of the Act of 2017 have been withdrawn and the judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Court has been complied with.
9. In rejoinder, the petitioner submitted that the respondents requested the Ex-Chief Minister Shri Jagannath Pahadia to vacate the Bungalow No. 5 situated at Hospital Road vide letter dated 19.01.2020 and on 21.01.2020 Shri Jagannath Pahadia vacated the house. But no notice was given to the Ex-Chief Minister Smt. Vasundhara Raje to vacate the Bungalow No. 13 and she was allowed to continue to occupy this Bungalow, so penalty of Rs. 10,000/- be imposed upon her per day in view of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Ministers Salaries (Amendment) Act, 1956 as she has not vacated the house after demitting the Office of the Chief Minister.
10. In reply to the rejoinder, the respondents submitted an additional affidavit to bring on record the following subsequent developments:
(i) That in compliance of the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Court, the facilities provided to for
