AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.—This motion is laid to initiate contempt proceedings against Divisional Commissioner Kashmir and Executive
Engineer, Right River Circular Road Division Srinagar for allegedly having defied/disobeyed the judgment/order dated 17-12-2003 of this Court
while disposing of OWP No. 645/2003.
Applicants (Writ petitioners) filed Writ petition 645/2003 restaining the State Government and its functionaries from dismantling petitioners
house and taking possession of the land for road widening on spot, without taking recourse to due process of law. The Addl. Advocate General
and Dy. Advocate General appeared for respondents and held out an assurance that the matter will be examined and the property of petitioner will
not be acquired other than in due course of law and the compensation assessed as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act will be paid to the
petitioners, on this assurance the writ petition was disposed of in terms as under:-
In view of the assurance extended by learned counsel for the respondents in the open court and the contention of the Advocates about the
grievance of the petitioners having been redressed, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly"".
In the application for contempt, petitioners allege that the structures of the petitioners have been demolished in an arbitrary manner and without
resorting to due course of law. No compensation is paid to the petitioners, therefore, respondents are guilty of disobeying the judgment and for
defiance of the order are liable to be proceeded against in contempt.
On examination of the matter, it will be seen that the judgment of which disobedience/ defiance is alleged does not in turn give any positive
direction as to ""do's and not to do's"". It merely records the assurance of the counsel appearing for the respondents and contention of the advocates
about the redressal of the grievance and on that basis disposes of the writ petition. It is not the case of willful disobedience of the Judgment or
order of the Court or willful breach of undertaking given to the Court. The noncompliance, even if it may be of a judgment, need not necessarily be
willful disobedience or intentional non compliance or positive defiance of the court judgment.
Material has to be on record to conclusive show the non-compliance/disobedience. This is not the case here. If one reads between the lines the
prayer in the contempt application, one would note that petitioner has also sought compensation which cannot be granted in contempt proceedings.
In fact in the judgment the assurance and representation of the State Government through AAG and Dy.A.G is recorded of compliance with law, in
the matter of acquisition of property and payment of due compensation under law. In case the State Government and its official have failed to do
so, the petitioner has his own remedies but certainly not one to resort to contempt proceedings. Petitioner is free to pursue his remedies based on
the facts and circumstance of the case including order dated 17-12-2003 of this court while disposing of OWP No. 645/2003. No doubt,
respondents, cannot be allowed to go back on the assurance extended the basis of order disposal of the writ petition still if assurance is not
fulfilled, remedy is available to petitioner against such conduct. Having regard to law of contempt, the provision of Contempt Act are to strictly
apply before a person is booked for contempt. In the facts and circumstance prima facie, no contempt is made out. Issuance of rule is declined.
With the above observations, dismissed.