VISHAL PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Interlocutory Application No. 971 of 2011 was submitted in W.P. (PIL) No. 1872 of 2010. However, on 25.3.2011 in I.A. No. 971 of 2011, an order was passed to convert the I.A. No. 971 of 2011 into contempt petition and therefore, this contempt petition has come before us. The petitioner complained that in spite of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 5926 of 2009 Suresh Prasad Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and others directing the authorities to remove the encroachment made over or on the property of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, encroachments have not been removed.

(2.) AFTER registering this contempt petition, this Court observed that there appears to be a tacit consent of the authorities in such illegal activities of continuing encroachment over the public property and therefore, on 20.4.2011, the Registrar General was directed to lodge F.I.R. with the Vigilance Department of the State to investigate the irregularities and illegalities in such matters. That order was clarified by the order dated 12.5.2011 and on 13.07.2011 and the State was directed to submit the status report with respect to the action taken against the unauthorized occupants of the public property situated in the area of Zila Parishad in the State of Jharkhand.

(3.) BE that as it may, in the High Court of Jharkhand approximately 1592 Civil contempt cases are pending and this figure is as on today i.e. on 25.01.2012. We make it clear that this is the position even when the contempt petitions, if are taken for consideration by the Court wherein reply has been filed and no much time is consumed of the Court in passing appropriate orders and normally the party, in whose favour there is an order, gets relief but even after deciding a large number of contempt matters by the High Court, the pendency of total cases is of 1592, which is certainly not a small issue but it is a big issue. We may state that these matters take not much time for decision provided State takes a stand in time before the matter reaches to the Court for consideration. These matters can be disposed of though within a period of 15 days only by the State at its own level by granting relief to the persons in whose favour judgment has attained finality but we expect that the State Government shall not only concentrate over the matter of deciding these contempt matters but shall also develop mechanism for implementation of the High Court orders and for that purpose, task may be given to one high authority of the Government so appropriate direction may be issued to the concerned Department either to show why the order has not been implemented or to direct its implementation within 15 days from the receipt of the notice of contempt itself and or that, without waiting for the next date of contempt petition, the compliance report may be submitted and the matter may be mentioned to the Court with request that relief has been granted to the contempt petitioner so that those matters may be taken by the Court without waiting for its turn and may be disposed of.