Locus standi of the petitioner and compliance with court directions are essential for initiating contempt proceedings.

Judgment

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with section 215 of the Indian Constitution alleging disobedience of the directions contemplated in the order dated 29/6/09 issued in public interest in W.P.No.625/02 in between parties Hardas Gupta and others Vs. State of M.P. & others. In the order dated 29/6/09 following directions were issued in operative para, which being germane to the point under consideration, may be quoted below:-

“Having heard the parties, we find that there is no dispute about the factual situation. Even counsel for the Electricity Board and Telephone Department could not dispute that their polls are on the roads.

According to them, those polls can be removed only if the Municipal Corporation makes arrangements for the funds. The question of finance can be considered even at subsequent stage. We also find that there are already orders of this Court dated 22/1/2008 that the Electricity Board should first remove the polls and then may raise demand from the Municipal Corporation towards the expenditure. However, still, no action is taken by the officers of the Electricity Board. Similar is the situation with the Telephone (Gaurav Pandey Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh & others) Department.

There is also no dispute that the persons who were removed in encroachment drive in the light of the orders passed by this Court in the case of M.M.Kaushik (supra) have again encroached upon the streets and footpath and doing their business. In such circumstances, we direct:-

(1) The Authorities of the State Government and the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior should strictly follow the directions issued by this Court in the case of M.M.Kaushik (supra) within a month from today.

(2) The Municipal Corporation, Gwalior shall level all the main holes in the area and bring it to the level of the roads within a month from today.

(3) Superintendent of Police, Gwalior and Superintendent of Police (Traffic) Gwalior should see that appropriate help is provided to the Municipal Corporation in removal of encroachment. We also direct them to see that there shall not be any encroachment in the area and if any encroachment is found, then hold the concerning Traffic In charge and the Station Officer of the concerning police station responsible for the same. The Ward Officers of the concerning wards shall also be held personally responsible if they do not report about the encroachment in future. The Municipal Corporation shall also see that there is no traffic congestion due to the encroachments or any other reason whatsoever.

(4) The Municipal Corporation shall also remove all the structures including the stairs and ramps which are constructed on the footpath of the roads within one month from today.

(5) The Municipal Corporation shall also take steps for repairs of drains and maintain good quality of roads in the area.

(6) The Municipal Magistrate appointed at Gwalior shall also look into the matter and visit the circulating area of Maharaj Bada and Maharaj Bada at least once a week. If he finds any encroachment, he may take legal action against the same.

(7) If there is any obstruction by any political person against removal of encroachments, then the Municipal Magistrate and the Authorities of the State Government and Municipal Corporation shall take appropriate legal steps against such political persons.

(8) The Electricity Board and the Department of Telecommunication shall positively remove their polls which are either on the roads or creating obstruction in the free flow of traffic within a period of one month from today.

Compliance report be positively filed by the respondents within one month from today. If this Court finds that directions issued by this Court in the present case as also in the case of M.M.Kaushik (supra) are not followed by the authorities, then they shall be liable for contempt of this Court.

List this petition on 11th of August, 2009.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner