VISHWAS SUDHANSHU BHAMBHURKAR Vs. TAPAN NITIN KHANDHADIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this contempt petition, the applicant party-in-person appearing has prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) Basically this contempt petition has been filed under Ss. 2 , 12 , 14 and 16 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and in the cause title it has been stated that this contempt petition is filed for non-compliance of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hamant Yashwant Dhage versus State of Maharashtra and Ors and XYZ versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. The background of this contempt petition is that the applicant came to know about some builders/ developers who had procured 'No Objection Certificate' from the Airports Authority by practicing misrepresentation and thereby has constructed property at spots significantly different from the location for which NOCs were issued. This was subsequently vindicated by the Airports Authority of India in its affidavit dtd. 24/2/2021 submitted in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 63 of 2019.

(3.) Heard applicant who is appearing as party-in-person. It appears that the party-in-person has made an attempt to persuade this Court to initiate appropriate steps under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act , against the court concerned as indicate above, but while perusing the memo of contempt petition, we found that on one hand in paragraph 5 it has been stated that the court below has deliberately acted against the order dtd. 17/8/2021 passed b the Division Bench of this Court, whereas on the other hand in prayer clause it has been mentioned that there is willful disobedience of two orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. order dtd. 10/2/2026 and order dtd. 5/8/2022 and as such, if we go by the prayer clause, the same are for non compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the present contempt petition basically in the present form where laconic averments are made and not only that, a self contradictory stand appears to have been taken looking to paragraph 5 and 6 and as such, we are not inclined to entertain the present contempt petition.