AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience and non-compliance of the judgment
dated 19 th February, 2015 passed in OWP no.256/2015, the operative portion of which reads as under:
“The petitioner has chosen a wrong forum to agitate the matter. However, keeping in view the nature of controversy the writ petition is taken up
for final disposal at its threshold and is disposed of by providing that writ petitioner shall approach the concerned authority with a representation which
shall be considered and decided by the said Authority within a period of one month and he is paid whatever compensation is due to him from the date
representation is received.
Disposed of along with all CMPs.â€
In response to the contempt petition, the respondents have filed statement of facts and taken a stand that the representation filed by the petitioner
has been considered and the petitioner has not been found entitled to any compensation on the ground that house damaged is a non-residential house
which is not covered by the policy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue as to whether the compensation is payable for non-residential house has already been
decided in affirmative by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29th October, 2015 passed in OWP no.1306/2015 and therefore,
rejection of representation of the petitioner is contrary to the judgment of the Division and, therefore, the respondents are in contempt.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
I am of the considered view that by considering the representation of the petitioner and taking a decision thereon, the respondents have fully
complied with the judgment of the writ court passed in OWP no.256/2015.
In so far as the judgment of the Division Bench dated 29th October, 2015 (supra) is concerned, the writ court has not given any finding with regard
to the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to the compensation as a matter of fact. The court has categorically observed that the petitioner has
chosen a wrong forum and left it open to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon.
The mandate of the order of which non-compliance is alleged by the petitioner is to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders and if the petitioner is found entitled to any compensation, the same be disbursed to him. The issue which is sought to be raised by
the petitioner now in these contempt proceedings is not determined by the writ court. Petitioner may have a cause despite his house being a non-
residential house and he may be entitled to compensation in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench, but contempt forum is not a forum to
agitate the same.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that respondents have complied with the judgment of the writ court and, as such, the
contempt proceedings are closed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to agitate the matter by challenging the rejection, if so advised, in
accordance with law.