SHASHI KANT BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred feeling aggrieved with non-compliance of the order of injunction, granted by the trial court.

(2.) It has been brought to the notice of this Court that injunction was granted by the trial court but the same was not complied with, hence, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 5821 (MB) of 2010 which was decided on 17.6.2010 providing therein that option is open to the petitioner to move appropriate application under section 151 C.P.C. and the trial court, as laid down by this Court in a case Mohd. Hamja vs. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Lko. and others, 2010 28 LCD 637, will adjudicate the controversy. This Court (one of us (Hon'ble D. P. Singh, J. ) held that under section 151 C.P.C. trial court has ample power to issue appropriate order or direction to the district authority to ensure compliance of the judgment & order or injunction granted by it. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Mohd. Hamja's case reads as under:

(3.) However, reiterating the proposition of law, we are of the view that in a democratic polity, it is always incumbent upon the governing authorities to implement the interim order or injunction order, granted by the trial court or this Court. In case, the injunction is not complied with by the private parties, the court has got ample powers to issue appropriate orders under section 151 C.P.C., directing the district authorities to implement the injunction granted by it. Non-compliance of the Court's order or injunction is the antithesis of the rule of law. In a civilized society, no one is above the law, whether it is a dispute with regard to the construction of a house or any other building including temple, mosque or church. In case, the Court has passed injunction order, it shall be incumbent upon the district authorities to implement the injunction or the order passed by the Court.