RAGHU NAYYAR Vs. A K NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, I shall dispose of these two petitions for contempt of Court. The petitioners had challenged ratable value and levy of transfer charges by MCD by way of two writ petitions. The writ petitions (C)Nos. 8097/04 and 17144/04 filed by the petitioners were allowed by this Court and this Court made following order: to summarise the findings and directions:

(2.) IN consequence of this order, the respondent/mcd was to pay costs within a period of four weeks and was also to do the mutation of the flats in the respective names of the petitioners within this period. Since the mutation and payment of costs was not done within four weeks petitioners preferred these contempt petitions.

(3.) THE respondent filed response in which it is stated that the respondent, against the order of the learned Single Judge, preferred LPAs, which were dismissed and thereafter respondent preferred SLPs before the Supreme Court which were also dismissed on 11. 1. 2008 and immediately after dismissal of the slps, the respondent paid the costs and also mutated the property in the name of the petitioners. It was stated in the response that delay on the part of the respondent occurred because of the fact that respondent had been waiting for outcome of LPAs No. 1171/07 and 1172/07 filed by it as well as thereafter waiting for outcome of SLPs. It is not disputed by the petitioners that LPAs and thereafter SLPs were preferred by the respondents. However, the contention of the petitioners is that there was no stay on the operation of the judgment given either by the Division Bench of this Court or by the Supreme Court therefore, the respondent was obliged to comply with the order of the Court. The petitioners relied upon State of Bihar and Ors. V. Rajendra Singh and Anr. 15 2004 (7) Scale 114.