Advocates:
['ADITYA SINGH', '', 'PRAGYANAND TIWARI', 'BIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Civil Contempt Petition No. 431 of 2018

Sanjay Narang

....... Petitioner

Vs.

Shri Jakir Hussain

…....Respondent

Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

This is a contempt petition filed by the

petitioner alleging that the respondent has willfully and

deliberately violated the order of this Court dated

10.01.2018 passed in Review Application No.941 of 2017

in Special Appeal No.645 of 2014.

2.

This case has a chequered history. The

petitioner had raised a construction in the Cantonment

area, which was against the bye-laws of the Cantonment

Board as well as against the Works of Defence Act, 1903.

3.

The case of the Cantonment Board was that

firstly the petitioner had raised the construction within 50

meters of a defence establishment, and hence violated the

Works of Defence Act, 1903. In any case, since the

construction raised by the petitioner was not authorized

under the Cantonment Act, 2006, a demolition order was

passed. Consequently, a writ petition being WPMS

No.2609 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner before this

Court which was dismissed by this Court on 27.11.2014,

2

against which, a special appeal being SPA No.645 of 2014

was filed by the petitioner, which was also dismissed by a

Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.09.2017.

4.

As far as the construction which was within 50

meters of the defence establishment was concerned, there

was no ambiguity in the order of the Division Bench and

the demolition was carried out, but the remaining

construction

which

was

beyond

50

meters,

the

Cantonment Board was to wait for a period of three

months before carrying out the demolition.

5.

The only question was from when the three

months period was to be calculated, whether it would be

calculated from 10.01.2018 when the Division Bench had

passed the order or from the date when the actual

measurement was carried out which was ultimately done

on 20.03.2018. The operative portion of the Division

Bench order dated 10.01.2018 is as follows:-

“We are of the view that the review is

to be partly allowed and the impugned notice

(Annexure - 2) in relation to Building No. 2 and

structures, namely, Building No.6 falling under

Building No. 2 will stand quashed. This we do

for the purpose of carrying out measurement

from the Work under the Defence of India

Rules. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 will carry out the

measurement. If it is found that the structures

are within 50 meters, they will be free to carry

out the demolition as per the notice. In case, it

is found that it is beyond 50 meters, then the

respondent Authorities will wait for a period of

three months and this is in view of the

pendency of the challenge against the order

setting

aside

the

sanction

order

dated

30.06.2012.”

(Emphasis Provided)

6.

It is true that on clarification sought by the

petitioner as to from when the three months period would

start, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

3

17.05.2018 later clarified that three months period would

start from 20.03.2018. This clarification was done on

17.05.2018. However, by this time, the demolition had

already been carried out. The petitioner, therefore, has

filed the present contempt petition before this Court

saying that the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the

Division Bench of this Court has been deliberately and

willfully disobeyed, inasmuch as, the demolition was

carried out before the period of three months.

7.

The reason why three months period was

granted to

the petitioner obviously was that the

petitioner’s

prayer

against

the

construction

and

demolition was pending before this Court in a writ petition

being WPMS No.07 of 2017, in which time was given to

the petitioner