ANJUMAN-E-HAIDERI Vs. CHAIRMAN, NDMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTEMPT is averred of the orders dated 17.05.2012 and 25.09.2012 in W.P.(C) No.646/2012 pending before this Bench. Vide order dated 17.05.2012, upon the counsel for the parties agreeing that the boundary wall as per the demarcation report, referred to in the said order, be constructed by the NDMC, NDMC was directed to go ahead with the construction of the boundary wall without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Vide subsequent order dated 25.09.2012, on the statement of the counsel for the relator / petitioner who is the respondent No.6 in the writ petition that inspite of the order dated 17.05.2012, NDMC had not completed construction of the boundary wall, it was ordered that if the order dated 17.05.2012 had not been complied with, the same be complied within eight weeks.

(2.) IT is the averment of the petitioner that the boundary wall has not been constructed.

(3.) WE have perused the order dated 17.05.2012 of which contempt is averred, the subsequent order dated 25.09.2012 being merely the reiteration thereof. Though the directions in the orders in the earlier writ petition find mention in the said order, but the order records that the demarcation report had been accepted by all the parties and the direction for construction of the boundary wall was issued on the said basis. It was further noticed that NDMC had already invited tenders for construction of Cont.Cas(C) No.820/2012 Page 3 of 5 the boundary wall. The counsel for the NDMC who was present during the hearing on 17.05.2012 did not contend that the tenders which had been issued were for construction of the boundary wall of two properties only and not for all the four properties or that there was any difficulty in construction of the boundary wall of the four properties. Rather the order dated 17.05.2012 is a consent order. Even if there was any difficulty earlier in construction of the boundary wall or any doubts, upon the counsels for the parties on 17.05.2012 agreeing to such construction, the earlier difficulties / doubts disappeared and the NDMC was required to raise construction of boundary wall strictly in accordance with the demarcation report. NDMC even thereafter did not approach this Court for any modification / clarification of the order and has given the explanation aforesaid only on receipt of notice of this contempt petition.