RAMDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition arises from a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2262 of 1992. One Most. Jeera Devi had filed the said writ petition for allotment of a residential plot at Rajendra Nagar under the displaced persons category. It may be mentioned here that a large chunk of land of the locality then known as Mahmudichak now Rajendra Nagar in Patna town was acquired for development of a housing colony under the aegis of the Patna Improvement Trust, the predecessor of the present Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA). The land of one Ram Das Pandit- was also acquired. The scheme provided for allotment of a plot to the land loosers. His wife Basomati Devi filed application for allotment of a plot of land. After her death said Jeera Devi who was daughter of Basomati Devi prosecuted the claim and, as such, filed the writ petition. Jeera Devi died and the petitioner herein was substituted in her place on 22-10-1997. There is a dispute about the petitioners relationship with Jeera Devi and/or Basomati Devi/Ram Das Pandit. I will refer to this aspect of the case a little later in this order, I shall, also, refer to the orders passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2262 of 1992 later in this order. It may be stated at this stage that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Vice-Chairman, PRDA vide letter No. 1267 dated 6-5-2003. Another order was passed, rejecting the claim, on 1-11-2003. Copies of the said letter/order are Annexures M and N to the supplementary show cause and second supplementary show cause, respectively.

(2.) On the basis of the above said orders it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the claim of the petitioner having been considered and disposed of though rejected and the order of this Court in the connected case thus has been complied with. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the orders of the Vice-Chairman are not in accordance with the order of this Court and, therefore, not only the order should be set aside, without relegating the petitioner to the writ jurisdiction and asking him to file fresh writ petition, the opposite party, in the circumstances, should be held to have committed contempt of Court and punished. In support of the contention that while deciding contempt petition the High Court can consider the merit of the case and pass appropriate order, reliance was placed on H. M. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 198 : (1991Cri LJ 1415)-and Ram Vilas Mishra v. State of Bihar, 1993 (1) Pat LJR 437.

(3.) Elaborating the submissions, on behalf of the petitioner-ShriY. V. Giri submitted that the petitioner having been substituted in place of Jeera Devi by order dated 22-10-1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 2262/92, it is not open to the authorities of the PRDA to question the status of the petitioner as heir/ successor of Most Jeera Devi and the finding of the Vice-Chairman in the order communicated by letter dated 6-5-2003 amounts to gross contempt of Court for which he is liable to be punished. He pointed out that PRDA was represented by its counsel in the writ petition but did not oppose the prayer for substitution, and even if the order dated 22-12-1997 is treated as ex parte order, no application was ever filed for recall/modification of the said order and in the circumstances, it is not open to the PRDA to question the status of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that the fact that correspondences were made with the petitioner and that he was offered a flat by letter No. 668 dated 1-2-2000, enclosed as Enclosure E to the show cause, should be treated as recognition by the PRDA of the petitioners status as his/successor of Jeera Devi.