This contempt petition has been filed against the sitting Central Minister, Subodh Kant Sahay alleging that in spite of positive direction of this Court in the Public Interest litigation for removal of encroachments with very strict direction to the State Government to remove the encroachment not only of the poor but also from the multistoried buildings, the said sitting Central Minister personally went to the spot and sat on Dharna and thereby obstructed the implementation of the order of this Court. It is also submitted that such person holding such high post personally indulged in obstructing the implementation of the order of the Court and thereafter, gave statement in press which certainly undermined the authority of the Court and amounts to criminal contempt of Court. Learned counsel submitted that he applied for permission of the Advocate General for initiating criminal contempt proceeding against respondent no. 3 but he has not received any communication, rejecting his request for initiation of criminal contempt proceeding nor any permission has been communicated. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that this Court may take suo motu cognizance of the offence committed by the contemnor-respondent no. 3.

2. We are of the considered opinion that High Court in Public Interest Petition has already observed in other orders that in extraordinary situation prevailing in the State of Jharkhand, extraordinary measures were taken by the High Court and thousands of encroachments were successfully removed. There may be some outburst and there may be some reaction without knowing the fact and understanding the law. And it is also not the case of any of the parties anywhere, which is clear even from the newspaper reporting, placed on record or in any petition before this Court that anybody has claimed the right to encroach upon the public land. The only grievance of some persons was to the effect that before removing encroachments some alternative arrangements should have been made by the Government and the Government should have taken remedial measures. That appears to be only for the purpose of getting sympathy of those persons who suffered because of the total callousness and negligence as well as because of the criminal negligence on the part of the Government officials in connivance with some of the small leaders so as to permit the encroachers to encroach upon the Government land. We may again say that no petition has been filed in any matter stating therein that anybody has right to encroach upon the Government and public land. It is to be understood well that law which has been enacted by the law makers only was enforced by the High Court by passing orders for removal of encroachments because of the failure of the executive authorities in long time which may be because of the failure of the various Governments and may be due to false promises and pressure of the local politicians. The problem of encroachment reached beyond any proportion, therefore, High Court had no option but to pass order for removal of encroachments. In that situation if someone gave some statement or over-reacted, the Court cannot be so touchy and particularly when that stature personality could not prevent State machinery to execute the Court's order nor could get support from law abiding persons and Court's orders were duly executed and implemented. It clearly indicates that in fact this was a general support of all public to clean all the various cities of the State of Jharkhand in accordance with law and to give relief to the large number of public who are even, in number in millions, as compared to the encroachers who may be in number of thousand. The silence of law abiding citizens and not agitating against the wrong doers does not mean that law abiding persons have no voice and Court is required to hear the voice of silence also and do justice to the law abiding citizens. In case encroachment can be recognized then it will be holding that the