IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.
Gull Mohammad Bhat – Petitioner
Versus
Raj Kumar Goyal & Ors. – Respondents
CCP(S) No. 445 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2023
Contempt of Court - Obstruction in Administration of Justice - Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1934 - Section 35 - The court dismissed the contempt petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for allegedly causing obstruction in the administration of justice. The court found that the respondents had availed legal remedies against the orders passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag, and that their actions did not amount to obstruction in the course of justice. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 upon the Applicant for abusing the process of law by filing the contempt petition on false and flimsy grounds and suppressing material facts.
Fact of the Case:
The Applicant filed a contempt petition against the respondents for allegedly causing obstruction in the administration of justice by seeking dismissal of a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was pending before the Court. The respondents had availed legal remedies against the orders passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contempt petition was an abuse of process of the Court and was not maintainable. The court held that the respondents had availed legal remedies as available under law and their actions did not amount to obstruction in the course of justice. The contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents were dropped, and costs of Rs. 25,000 were imposed upon the Applicant for abusing the process of law.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were whether the respondents' actions amounted to obstruction in the administration of justice, and whether the contempt petition filed by the Applicant was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents' availing of legal remedies against the orders passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag, did not amount to obstruction in the course of justice. The court also found that the contempt petition filed by the Applicant was an abuse of process of the Court and was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the contempt petition and dropped the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents. The court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 upon the Applicant for abusing the process of law.
JUDGMENT :
1. An Application has been preferred by the Applicant/Respondent No. 1 (petitioner herein) under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for allegedly causing obstruction in the administration of justice.
2. As per the stand of the Applicant, the Union Territory of J&K has preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which has been registered as CM(M) No. 178/2022 in which this Court vide order dated 16.09.2022 has been pleased to observe as under:-
3. The case of the Applicant is that the Court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag has directed the Collector to deposit the amount in Court along with interest @ 6% for the first year from the date of taking over the possession and further interest @ 10% per annum for the subsequent years and, accordingly, the Collector was asked to make the payment within a period of one month and the amount was directed to be deposited with the 'Naazir' of the Court by virtue of order dated 27.03.2010.
4. The further case of the Applicant is that the aforesaid order passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag, dated 27.03.2010 came to be assailed by the respondents by way of a writ petition bearing No. OWP No. 243/2016 which came to be dismissed by virtue of judgment/order dated 18.01.2019. The Applicant submits that the said judgment/order dated 18.01.2019 passed in OWP No. 243/2016 came to be challenged by way of a Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 157/2019 and the same came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide detailed judgment/order dated 19.02.2021.
5. Mr. J.H. Reshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has strongly relied upon the undertaking which came to be furnished to the Court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag, wherein Mr. B.A. Shah who was posted as Deputy Director (Fire and Emergency Services) Command, Anantnag, affirmed and declared that, in case of failure to obtain stay in LPA before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar and subsequently order passed by the Court dated 18.01.2019 in OWP No. 243/2016, he shall satisfy the decree under execution in his official capacity.
6. The further stand of the Applicant is that in the meantime, the matter regarding deposit of Rs. 14,16,000/- for execution of the aforesaid order dated 27.03.2010, passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag, and order passed by this Court dated 02.07.2019 passed in LPA No. 157/2019 came to be taken up by the Non-Applicant/Contemnor No. 4, i.e. the judgment Debtor No. 2 with various Government functionaries vide communication dated 11.07.2019.
7. The learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that the aforesaid judgment/order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court came to be assailed by the Union Territory of J&K by way of a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP No. 13206/2021 and it is a matter of record that when the aforesaid SLP came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.09.2021, a statement was made on behalf of the respondents that the matter will be settled between the parties.
8. It has been further submitted that as a consequence thereof, a High-Level Meeting came to be held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary in which a decision was taken that the aforesaid statutory interest amounting to Rs. 14,16,000/- payable to the land owners will be deposited in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Anantnag, with a view to comply with the order dated 27.03.2010, supra.
9. Learned counsel for the Applicant further subm
R.N. Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors.
Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. Goeorge Ravishekaran
'Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India
Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Availing legal remedies does not amount to obstruction in the course of justice, and filing a contempt petition on false and flimsy grounds and suppressing material facts is an abuse of process of th....
The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the court's order. If the disobedience is the result of some compelling c....
Contempt - Appellant can be exonerated for contempt of court giving benefit of doubt as he tendered unconditional apologies sincerely for the delay in implementation of the order of the court with al....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.