Karan Singh vs Sudhanshu Pant

Alok Sharma, J.—The three matters under consideration come up on second contempt petitions for the alleged non-compliance with the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by this Court in SBCW P. No. 1818/2009, titled Karan Singh V. JDA & Ors. Therein the Court had directed as under:

"On perusal of the order dated 27.5.2008, I find that the matter of the similar nature was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench with certain directions. Looking to the aforesaid, this matter is also disposed of with the direction to the JDA to decide the issue in regard to the plots in dispute. This direction is given without entering into the controversy involved in the present matter but with one observation that regularization if required to be made or decision is taken by the JDA then it should not be in violation of the Rules of Sub-division Rules, 1975 providing maximum saleable area to be 66%. If any adverse order is passed by the JDA then that should be speaking order and it may be conveyed to the petitioner. Necessary action in that regard may be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

It has been stated that earlier contempt petition No. 487/2011 was also filed against the non-compliance with the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by this Court. Thereupon this Court, noting the submissions of the counsel for the JDA that the compliance of the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by this Court had been made under the JDA order dated 23.8.2011, had dismissed the contempt petition and discharged the contemnors but left "the petitioner free to move fresh contempt petition if new cause of action arose". It has been stated that in these circumstances, the petitioner being dissatisfied with the reasoning of the JDA in dismissing the petitioner''s representation vide order dated 23.8.2011, this second contempt petition has been filed. Mr. S. Kasliwal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Krishan Verma counsel for the petitioners has sought to rely upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Salmaben S. Dordawala Vs. Hajar Janab Amil Saheb and Another, as also on the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) in the case of Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees Association Vs. E.T. Sunup and Another, to contend that the second contempt is indeed maintainable for the same cause of action.

Reply to the contempt petition has been filed. It has been submitted that the earlier contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 8.4.2009 was dismissed on 24.8.2011. No "new cause of action" has since arisen to lay this second contempt petition. The order dated 23.8.2011 passed by the JDA rejecting the petitioner''s claim for converting a facility area into a residential plot was also on record before the learned Judge on 24.8.2011 when the earlier contempt petition was dismissed. It was further submitted that in any event the directions of this Court in its order dated 8.4.2009 was to consider the case of the petitioner and the case of the petitioner having been considered and rejected by the JDA on a very substantial ground as the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 13084/2009, titled Shri Rakesh and others v. State of Rajasthan and others decided on 7.7.2011 had categorically held that once a lay out plan for a residential scheme was approved by the JDA, the facility areas therein vested in the JDA in the nature of a public trust and such areas for use as commons could not be thereafter on any ground whatsoever transferred to the private use to public detriment.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

In my considered view a second contempt on the same cause of action is not at all maintainable. It is trite that the passing of an order in any legal proceedings on a cause of action consumes the cause of action which merges in the final order passed. The aggrieved party then has to challenge the final order if aggrieved thereof and cannot revert to the same cause of action and take fresh legal proceedings of contempt or otherwise based thereon. For this purpose reference can be made to the Judgment of this Court passed in SB Civil Contempt Petition No. 1135/2011 in SB Civil Writ petition No. 2610/2006, Laxmi Narain Sharma & Anr. v. Shri Madhukar Gupta & Ors., decided on 28.10.2014 wherein this Court has held as under:

"It is well settled that on a judgment being rendered on a cause of action, the cause of action merges into the judgment and cannot by itself be the foundation of another legal proceeding. The cause of action with the petitioners in filing the first contempt petition No. 477/2009 for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 08.12.2008 passed in SBCWP No. 2610/2006 merged with the dismissal of the said contempt petition. On the same cause of action, in terms of settled law, a fresh contempt petition is not maintainable- the liberty granted by the Court notwithstanding. The liberty granted by this Court cannot be construed as overriding the well settled law of the land that a cause of action merges into decision rendered thereon."

It is further apparent in this case that the Court while dismissing the first contempt petition (No. 487/2011) had only allowed the petitioner to move a fresh contempt petition "if new cause of action arose". In the circumstances, I would be inclined to dismiss the second contempt petition as not being maintainable.

Aside of the aforesaid even on merits in my considered opinion no contempt of the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by this Court, as alleged, is made out. Therein this Court had merely directed that the case of the petitioner be considered with reference to the provisions of the UIT Sub-division Rules, 1975 and a speaking order thereon be passed and be conveyed to the petitioner within a period of three months. The JDA under its order dated 23.8.2011 has held that the facility area of an approved lay out plan for a residential scheme vests in the JDA under the public trust doctrine and cannot be transferred for private user. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of V. Kanakarajan Vs. General Manager, South Eastern Railway and others, has held that where the Court directs that the case of the petitioner be considered and it is so considered, the petitioner''s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the consideration would not constitute contempt of the Court and that a rejection of the petitioner''s representation would only constitute a fresh cause of action to avail remedy there-against in accordance with law.

In my considered opinion nothing in the aforesaid two judgments of the Gujarat and Gauhati High Court relied upon by Sr. Counsel for the petitioners constitutes a ratio decidendi binding and to be followed by this Court. Even otherwise the principle that a cause of action merges with the order passed thereon and is not thereafter available for fresh proceedings, cannot be dislocated by the mere entertainment of second contempt petitions by the other Hon''ble High Courts without addressing the fundamental issue as to their maintainability and its adjudication.

In the circumstances, I find no force in the contempt petitions as laid both on account on their not being maintainable and no contempt of the order dated 5.8.2009 passed by this Court being made out in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The contempt petitions are accordingly dismissed. Notices issued to the respondents stand discharged.