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

2017 Supreme(J&K) 386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN, J.
M/s Taksal Hotel Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Radha Krishan Mathur and another - Respondents
Contempt no.04 of 2015 In APOW no.28 of 2014 In OWP no.1132 of 2013
Decided on : 11-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr C. M. Koul, Virender Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. D.C.Raina, Senior Advocate, Mr Anuj Dewan Raina, Ms Sindhu Sharma, ASGI Mr Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC

Contempt proceedings are limited to determining compliance with court orders and cannot review the correctness of the authority's actions. Aggrieved parties should seek redress through appropriate judicial review and regular proceedings.

Headnote:

Contempt - Non-compliance of Court Order - Cantonment Board Byelaws - Cantonments Act, 2006

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance with the court order dated 21st November 2014, which directed the publication of approved Byelaws of Cantonment Board, Jammu. The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to publish the approved Byelaws, causing financial losses and hardship.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had initiated the process of publication of Byelaws in compliance with the court order. The court also noted that the petitioner's insistence on the publication of specific Byelaws was a matter for judicial review and not contempt proceedings. The court dismissed the contempt petition, stating that there was no willful and intentional disobedience of the court orders.

Issues: The issues involved the non-compliance with the court order for the publication of approved Byelaws and the petitioner's insistence on the specific Byelaws to be published.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that contempt proceedings are limited to determining whether the court orders have been complied with and cannot delve into the correctness of the authority's actions or decisions. The court emphasized that aggrieved parties should seek redress through appropriate judicial review and regular proceedings.

Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed, and the court clarified that the dismissal did not express any opinion on the issues raised, allowing the petitioner to pursue other remedies through legal channels.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for non-compliance and disobedience of order dated 21st November 2014, passed in APOWP no.28/2014 in OWP no.1132/2013 titled M dated, pursuant whereto, 45 days’ time was given to respondent no.1 to publish the already approved Byelaws of Cantonment Board, Jammu, that, according to petitioner, was not published, to the apparent disadvantage and detriment of petitioner. Petitioner’s averment in application on hand is that writ petition titled M/s Taksal Hotel Pvt Limited v. Union of India and others, previously filed before this Court, was registered as OWP no.1132/2013, and disposed of vide order dated 25th October 2013, directing respondents to publish fresh byelaws as approved by Jammu Cantonment Board within a period of one month from the date copy of the order was made available to respondent no.1. It is contended that aforesaid order became subject matter of LPA no.01/2014, which, however, was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 27th January 2014. Special Leave Petitions are said to have been filed before the Supreme Court of India, in which petitioner before the Supreme Court, was permitted to file an application before this Court for extension of time to publish fresh byelaws already approved by Jammu Cantonment Board. It is averred in the application that learned counsel for present petitioner extended assurance that contempt matter would not be pressed pending before this Court in the interregnum. Subsequently, respondent is said to have preferred an application before this Court for extension of time to publish fresh byelaws as approved by Jammu Cantonment Board, to which detailed objections were filed. Petitioner also asserts that on 21st November 2014, after hearing counsel for parties, this Court passed an order, granting 45 days’ time for compliance, i.e. to ensure publishing of approved Byelaws as directed by judgment dated 25th October 2013. As stated by petitioner, 45 days have already come to an end on 4th January 2015 and to the knowledge of petitioner, respondent has not implemented the directions of this Court passed on 21st November 2015 and byelaws have not been published, perpetuating petitioner’s grievances with added enormity. It is maintained that respondents have subjected petitioner to unprecedented hardship and harassment by their inaction to deal with the matter and petitioner has been subjected to huge financial losses in the face of inaction of respondents.

2. On 15th May 2015, an application, by respondent, was filed for placing on record Supplementary Affidavit. Respondent, in Supplementary Affidavit, avers that application, being MP no.09/2014, was filed for deferring contempt proceedings in view of observations of the Supreme Court in SLP no.3862/2014, issued vide order dated 22nd April 2014, which is pending before this Court. Respondent contends that the Draft Building Byelaws, prepared by Cantonment Board for publication, were considered by Ministry of Defence, which made changes in Draft Building Byelaws and vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence (Directorate General Defence Estates, Delhi Cantt) letter no.76/40/ Court Case/WC/Jammu/C/DE/14(Vol-III) dated 8th April 2015, the same was approved for publication by Cantonment Board for inviting suggestions and objections from public. Thus, as directed by this Court, Ministry of Defence has set in motion the process of publication of Byelaws, which is stated to be a multi-level process passing through various stages as per the provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006, and in compliance with above decision of Ministry of Defence, a public notice, publishing byelaws was issued/notified by Cantonment Board, Jammu, in leading daily Newspaper of Jammu, i.e. Daily Excelsior, in its Issue dated 10th April 2015, along with its parallel publication in a leading Hindi daily newspaper, namely, Amar Ujala, in its Issue dated 10th April 2015.














































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top