RAVI BHARTI SIKSHA SAMITTEE Vs. MADHUKAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court for alleged violation of order dated 16th November, 2004 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3643/2004.

(2.) THE Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3643/2004 was disposed by order dated 16th november 2004 on the basis of agreement arrived at between the parties. It was agreed between the parties that DDA would fence the area, possession of which is to be offered to the petitioner and the entire cost for fencing would be borne by the petitioner. The respondent/dda had to indicate the cost of fencing which was not to be challenged by the petitioner and which the petitioner was liable to deposit. After fencing, the area was to be measured by the parties and within 30 days after the measurement, the petitioner had to pay the amount within 30 days thereafter. Two weeks after the receipt of the amount, the respondent had to handover the possession of the area to the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has contended that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 55,77,646/- in compliance with the order dated 16th November 2004 and the understanding arrived at between the parties; however, the respondent has failed to fence the area and handover the possession of the site to the petitioner. In these circumstances, petitioner has claimed initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the respondents, who are Vice Chairman of DDA, Director (Land) and Executive Engineer (ED-III) of Delhi Development Authority. The respondents have contended that they have the highest regard for the orders passed by this Court and there is no deliberate or intentional violation of the orders passed by this Court. It is contended that the area could not be fenced nor the possession of the area could be handed over to the petitioner on account of the status quo order passed in respect of the same land in another writ petition being W. P. (C.) No. 3064/2005. It is also contended that the construction of boundary wall could not be commenced on account of time required for inviting tenders for the purpose of construction of the boundary wall. Thereafter, status quo order has been obtained by the Resident's Welfare Association in a separate writ petition where the Delhi Development Authority has been directed to maintain status quo. This cannot be disputed by the petitioner that in Writ Petition no. 3064/2005, a status quo order was passed on 24th May, 2005. The petitioner has also sought his impleadment in the said writ petition and he had impleaded as a party. Though there was delay in inviting tenders for construction of the fence/boundary wall, however, that per se will not amount to committing contempt of this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Thereafter, the land and possession of which is to be handed over to the petitioner, has not been fenced and handed over to the petitioner, on account of status quo order passed by this Court, this will not be violation of the order passed by this Court pursuant to an agreement/understanding arrived at between the parties.