Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 31841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Amit Sharma, JJ
Court on Its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Aggarwal – Respondent
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 1/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul KR. Singh, Mr. Rahul Kumar Kanoujia, Mr. Sanjay Prasad Verma, Ms. Sukriti Verma, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh
Conduct demanding money for withdrawing a writ petition constitutes criminal contempt, obstructing justice and undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2(c)(ii), 2(c)(iii), and 12 - The case involves a contempt reference against a writ petitioner accused of attempting to leverage a judicial proceeding for personal gain by demanding money for withdrawing the writ petition and making allegations of unauthorized construction. The conduct amounts to criminal contempt as it obstructs the administration of justice and undermines public confidence in the judicial process. The court held the contemnor guilty but, considering his medical condition and age, opted for a lenient sentence, ordering the contemnor to remain in court until the rising of the court and to pay a fine to the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee. (Paras 18 - 24)
(B) Legal principles on criminal contempt - The court elaborated on the need for upholding the integrity of the judiciary, stating that conduct undermining the judicial process cannot be condoned. The intention behind filing the writ was deemed to be for personal gain, thereby showing disregard for judicial proceedings. (Paras 6, 20, 21)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contempt arises from unauthorized construction and demands for money. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. evidence revealing negotiation for withdrawal suggests contempt. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. threat to judicial integrity through personal financial gain. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 4. remorse and medical condition influence leniency in sentencing. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
Background & Procedural History
2. The present contempt reference under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) has arisen from the order dated 19th December, 2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 13482/2021 titled ‘Pradeep Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi’
3. The brief background of the present reference is as follows –
The Petitioner in the writ petition, Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, who is now the Respondent-Contemnor, sought to initiate action against unauthorised construction on certain lands situated in Burari, Delhi. The Respondents in the said writ petition were various governmental authorities and two private individuals, namely Mr. Ram Niwas Gupta and Mr. Shyam Surender. The prayer in the writ petition was as follows:
“a) Pass writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take legal action in accordance with the provisions of DMC Act and in terms Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2018 issued by Govt. of India Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in respect of continuing unauthorized construction on the property Khasra no.20/12/1(1-17) and 20/19 (4-16) situated at village Burari, more particularly shown in the site plan annexed with the petition.
b) pass any other of further order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant.”
4. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 15th December, 2021, the Learned Single Judge took note of various allegations made in the writ petition and passed the following interim order:
“CM APPL. 45219/2021 (early hearing)
1. Since notice has not yet been issued, the application is allowed. The petition is taken up for hearing today.
2. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13482/2021
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that unauthorised colony is being developed on subject agricultural land without any sanction.
W.P.(C) 13482/2021
4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, 3 and 4 as also by counsel for respondent no. 2.
5. Notice shall issue to respondent no. 5 and 6, returnable on 02.08.2022.
6. In the meantime, respondents, particularly the concerned SHO, shall ensure that no unauthorized construction activity is permitted in the subject area except in accordance with a sanctioned scheme of the Government for creating plotted development or in accordance with a sanctioned building plan, if any
7. Next date 07.01.2022 is cancelled.”
5. An application was then filed in the writ petition by the Respondents being CM APPL.12141/2022 wherein the private Respondent No. 5- Mr. Ram Niwas Gupta took the stand that the Petitioner i.e., the Contemnor himself was guilty of unauthorised construction. Notice was issued in the said application on 10th March, 2022.
6. Thereafter, a second application being CM APPL.33765/2022 was filed by Mr. Ram Niwas Gupta, seeking dismissal of the writ petition. In the said application, Mr. Ram Niwas Gupta relied on certain transcripts of conversations that occurred on 13th April, 2022 and 27th May, 2022 between Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal and a mutual friend i.e., one Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta. According to the said conversations, which were transcribed and placed on record with the said application, the Contemnor is stated to have demanded a sum of Rs.50 lakhs for withdrawing the said writ petition. The Learned Single Judge, who was hearing the said writ petition, took note of these allegations in the said application and vide order dated 2
