A K SINGH Vs. BALESHWAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for initiation contempt of court proceedings for violation of the court orders dated 21.5.1996 and 4.7.1996 has been filed on the allegations that on the basis of the permission dated 21.6.1993 granted by the then Administrator, N.D.M.C. to keep sofa and chairs in front of the telephone booth allotted to the petitioner is Palika Bhawan. Ground Floor, R.K.Puram, the petitioner invested huge amount of about Rs. 1.50 lakhs for arranging sofa, chairs, stools and utensils, ulmirah etc. and kept them under the temporary structure of alluminium and glases. Through letter dated 7.11.1994 the petitioner was asked to remove the said articles by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed CW 1321/95 wherein in ex parte ad interim order was passed on 19.4.95 restraining the respondents from removing the aforesaid articles. However, the order dated 19.4.1995 was vacated by a subsequent order dated 21.5.1996. It is stated that on 23.5.1996 at 9.00 A.M. when the petitioner was removing the glass panes etc. filled with the structure with the help of the labours, the condemners accompanied by one AtuI Dewan, labourers and drivers destroyed the structure in violation of the order dated 21.5.1996. They also took away the entire articles including local PCO and the fax machine etc. It is further stated that the petitioner filed CM 4122/96 seeking direction to the respondents to restore the functioning of the booth and to return the articles as per the list given by him. On 4.7.1996 when the said application was listed for hearing respondent No.4 representing N.D.M.C. admitted the taking away of the articles. On 4.7.1996 itself respondents were directed by the court to return the articles on 5.7.1996 at 10.00 A.M. to the petitioner. Petitioner through his attorney/manager approached the Estate and Enforcement Departments on 5.7.1996 but the articles were not returned to him except a few articles and that too in broken condition returned to the petitioner on 9.7.1996, which were received by him under protest. Respondents have not returned the telephone machine, instruments, accessories locker, fan, chair, window doors and a cash amount of Rs.13,000.00 despite the order dated 4.7.1996. Petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 2.8.1996 through his counsel on the respondents but despite service thereof respondents have not bothered to return the aforesaid articles and money to the petitioner. Respondents have thus violated court orders dated 21.5.1996 and 4.7.1996.

(2.) On 2.9.1996 when the petition was taken up the court chose only to have parawise reply from the Director (Enf.). N.D.M.C. so as to find out the correct facts before taking cognizance of the alleged contempt.

(3.) In the parawise reply on the affidavit of R.D.Srivastava, Director (Estate). N.D.M.C. it is inter alia stated that after the decision to withdraw/cancel permission dated 21.6.1993, which was conveyed through letter dated 7.11.1994 by the respondents to the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application before the Appellate Tribunal, M.C.D. and obtained stay order. After the appeal was dismissed the petitioner filed the present civil writ petition and by mis-representing facts obtained ad interim order dated 19.4.1995, which order was ultimately vacated on 21.5.1996. It is further stated that the petitioner on 21.5.96 and 22.5.1996 was warned to remove unauthorised encroachment but when he failed and neglected to do the needful action was taken by the staff of N.D.M.C. to remove the unauthorised encroachment. An inventory of the articles seized by N.D.M.C. staff was prepared. The petitioner was asked to take delivery of articles but he declined. Seized articles, as per inventory have since been returned to the petitioner on 9.7.1996. It is emphatically denied that any admission was made in regard taking away articles by the respondents as alleged. A copy of the seizure memo was handed over to the petitioner's counsel and the article were ordered to be returned by the court as per the said seizure memo. It is further denied that the telephone machine etc. were also seized from the telephone booth by the respondents as alleged. It is further denied that no inventory of the seized articles was prepared. It is stated that since the grant of permission and withdraw thereof was with the permission of the Director (Estate), the present affidavit is being filed by him instead of by the Director (Enf.), N.D.M.C.