AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents have deliberately, intentionally and malafidely violating of the order of this Court dated 03.12.2018. The order dated 03.12.2018 reads as under:-
"On perusal of para 9 of the said order and para 11(a), it appears that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, they were of the view that a fresh application is to be made to the Cantonment Board, Shillong and Cantonment Board, Shillong will consider the matter and take necessary steps.
If it is so, petitioner is directed to take necessary steps as per para 11(a) of the order of the appellant authority and Cantonment Board to dispose of the matter in a fair manner.
After that, if petitioner is in anyway aggrieved, he may approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of along with all Misc. cases."
Ms. A Paul, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 has invited the attention of this Court towards the order passed by the Cantonment Board. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
"Resolution
The matter was widely deliberated by the Board. The Board took note of the Stay order on acquisition proceedings by Guwahati High Court communicated vide DEO, Guwahati Circle letter No.AS/1321/HRG/SUIT/62 Dt.3.10.2019 that the LMA vide letter No.540/31/Q/33 dt.27.9.2019. Shri Parasmal Bothra, elected member is of the view that sanction is to be issued with conditions keeping in view the order of the appellate authority, dt.26 November, 2018.
The board finally Considered and rejected the building application."
Even though, Mr. VK Jindal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that rejection of the application to raise the building has not been considered and dealt with in a fair manner, this would amount to contempt of the order of this Court. The Court is not convinced with the aforesaid arguments as the direction was simply to consider the matter and take necessary steps. Even if it was directed that the Cantonment Board shall consider the matter in a fair manner, it also does not tantamount to saying that the application shall be granted.
In fact, the Court clearly observed that if the petitioner is in any way aggrieved of the decision taken by the Cantonment Board on his application, he may approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
No case for contempt is made out. The petition is dismissed, while reiterating the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Board, if he is so advised in a fresh writ petition.