Back
1982 Supreme(All) 570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. C. Mathur, J.
RAM PRAKASH AND BROS. - Appellant
Versus
NAGAR MAHAPALIKA - Respondents
. . Of .
Decided On : 08/13/1982
Removal of a stall in violation of an injunction order amounts to contempt of court and the officials responsible can be punished for the same.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - Removal of Stall in Violation of Injunction Order - Contempt of Court Proceedings - Limitation - Initiation of Proceedings - Framing of Charge - Alternative Remedy - Efficacy - Bona Fide Action - Acceptance of Apology.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's wooden stall at Hazaratganj, Lucknow was removed by Nagar Mahapalika officials in violation of an interim injunction issued by the District Judge, Lucknow and confirmed by the High Court. The petitioner filed a contempt application against the officials.
Finding of the Court:
1. The removal of the petitioner's stall was in violation of the injunction order and amounted to contempt of court. 2. The contempt proceedings were initiated within the limitation period as the order "issue notice" passed by the court amounted to initiation of proceedings. 3. Framing of charge is not mandatory for initiation of contempt proceedings. 4. The alternative remedy under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code was not efficacious in the present case as the land on which the stall was situated was disputed and the proprietors of the land were not impleaded in the suit. 5. The action of the officials was not bona fide as they had full knowledge of the injunction order. 6. The apology tendered by the subordinate officials was accepted, but the main official was held guilty of contempt and sentenced to pay a fine or undergo imprisonment in default.
Issues: 1. Whether the removal of the petitioner's stall was in violation of the injunction order and amounted to contempt of court? 2. Whether the contempt proceedings were initiated within the limitation period? 3. Whether framing of charge is mandatory for initiation of contempt proceedings? 4. Whether the alternative remedy under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code was efficacious in the present case? 5. Whether the action of the officials was bona fide? 6. Whether the apology tendered by the officials should be accepted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The removal of the petitioner's stall was in violation of the injunction order and amounted to contempt of court as the officials had full knowledge of the injunction order. 2. The contempt proceedings were initiated within the limitation period as the order "issue notice" passed by the court amounted to initiation of proceedings. 3. Framing of charge is not mandatory for initiation of contempt proceedings. 4. The alternative remedy under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code was not efficacious in the present case as the land on which the stall was situated was disputed and the proprietors of the land were not impleaded in the suit. 5. The action of the officials was not bona fide as they had full knowledge of the injunction order. 6. The apology tendered by the subordinate officials was accepted, but the main official was held guilty of contempt and sentenced to pay a fine or undergo imprisonment in default.
Final Decision: The main official was held guilty of contempt and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days in default. The subordinate officials were let off with a warning and ordered to pay the petitioner's costs.
( 1 ) RAM Prakash and brothers through Sri Ram Prakash had directed this application under S- 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and six of its officials viz. Sri Rajiv Ratan Shah, the then administrator, Sri J. C. Seth, Upnagar Adhikari, Sri mahesh Chandra. Up-Prashasak, Sri S. K. Sabbarwal, Nagar Adhiyanta, Sri Viswanath Prasad srivastava, Inspector and Sri Lekhram Chowdhary. Inspector. During the pendency of the application Sri S. K. Sabbarwal and Viswanath Prasad Srivastava died and the application against them abated. Nagar Mahapalika, opposite party 1 is a statutory body and only its officials can be punished for the alleged contempt. The application therefore survives against Sri Shah, Sri Seth, sri Chandra and Sri Choudhary. These officers are alleged to have removed the petitioners wooden stall at Hazaratganj, Lucknow on 2-2-1975 in violation of the interim injunction issued by the learned District Judge, Lucknow on 8-7-1965, Annexure 4, which was confirmed by this court through its judgment and order Dt. 23-11-1972 passed in appeal preferred by the Nagar mahapalika, Lucknow.
( 2 ) THE petitioners case is that in the year 1948 he put up a stall on a piece of land situate at hazaratganj, Lucknow after obtaining the same on rent from its owner Newal Kishore Estate. According to him this stall was 16 away from the footpath and was much behind the alignment of the arcade in which certain persons had put up stalls. In short, the petitioners case is that his stall was not situate either on a public or Mahapalika road or public or Mahapalika land. On 9-6-1965 the Nagar Mahapalika issued notice to the petitioner stating therein that his stall was unauthorised and required him to show cause why the same may not be removed. The petitioner submitted his reply stating therein that he had not made any encroachment and that the notice was illegal. The Nagar Adhiyanta (Bhawan) sent reply D/- 25-1-69 accepting that the petitioners stall was not situate on Mahapalika land and that the notice was being treated as cancelled and the legal proceedings were being dropped. Before receipt of this reply the petitioner had filed regular suit 1 of 1965, in the Court of the learned District Judge, Lucknow, challenging the legality of the notice and right of the Nagar Mahapalika to remove his stall. Similar notices had been given to certain other stall holders also and they too joined the petitioner in filing the suit against the Mahapalika. In this suit an application was moved for interim injunction on which the following order was passed on 10-6-1965 (Annexure A to the affidavit dated 19-3-1982 filed along with Criminal Misc. Application, 171 of 1982 ). Heard. Issue notice for 9-7-65. Restrain meanwhile as prayed. The Deputy Nazir will serve the injunction order today in this case as well as the other four similar cases. . . .
( 3 ) ON the basis of the above order formal injunction order was issued and served upon the mukhya Nagar Adhikari on 10-6-1965 itself. Relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
. . . this court doth order that an injunction be awarded to restrain you, Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow defendant in the above case, your servants, agents and workers from evicting, dispossessing the above noted plaintiffs from their stalls, till the disposal of this application. . . .
( 4 ) AGAINST the above ex parte interim injunction objection was filed on behalf of Mahapalika but the same was rejected on 8-7-1965 with the following observation:
. . . In this state of affairs it cannot be said that it is a very clear case in favour of the defendant or that the plaintiffs have no case. Accordingly, even though the defendant proposes to act in the public interest, it is desirable to restrain if from removing the stalls during the pendency of the suits. I accordingly order that in each of the above suits the injunction already issued shall be maintained. Against t
