AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants have assailed the order dated 30.01.2019 whereby the learned Single Judge has accepted the IA no. 1/2019 filed by one Haji Mohammad Maqbool Nath (respondent no. 5 before us), in his writ petition being OWP no. 1750/2017 and permitted withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition in the event cause arises.
The appellants before us are three sisters of Haji Mohammad MaqboolNath who are claiming interest in the estate left by their father namely Jalal Din Nath, a businessman of repute. It appears that the sisters (appellants herein) and their brother-respondent no.5 herein, are in civil litigation before the Principal District Judge at Srinagar.
Amongst the properties which are stated to be forming part of the estate of late Haji Jalal din Nath is the Hotel Sunrise. The appellants have claimed joint ownership of the Hotel Sunrise alongwith land which is situated at Lal Mandi, Srinagar. It appears that this Hotel was being hired by the official respondents for accommodating move/non-move employees. However, an order dated 27.10.2017 was issued by the official respondents which did not include the name of the Hotel Sunrise as amongst the hotels hired by the official respondents.
In the writ petition (OWP no. 1750/2017) the petitioner, therefore, challenged the Government order dated 27.10.2017 and sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to hire the said hotel for the move/non-move employees of winter session as well as release of rentals in his favour.
In this writ petition, an interim order dated 02.11.2017 was passed by the learned Single Judge directing release of outstanding rent for the Hotel in favour of the petitioner starting from May 2017 till 02.11.2017.
The appellants assailed this order by way of LPA no. 232/2017 complaining that though they had a right and interest in the said Hotel, the respondent no. 5 had not impleaded them as party respondents.
In this background, the Division Bench passed the order dated 19.04.2018 directing that the appellants be impleaded as respondents 5 to 7 in the writ petition. The Division Bench further directed the writ court to consider the matter afresh for issuance of interim relief. By the order dated 19.04.2018, the Division Bench had specifically directed that till such time the writ petition was listed before the writ court, the parties shall maintain status quo as it existed from the date of passing of the order.
It appears that the writ petition was never placed before the learned Single Judge and the order of status quo passed by the Division Bench continued to bind the parties. Taking advantage of the non-listing of the writ petition, the respondent no.5 appears to have surreptitiously filed an application which was registered as MP 1/2019 praying for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one if cause survives.
The respondent no. 5 did not implead the appellants as parties in the application for withdrawal. So far as the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition was concerned, a blatant statement was made by respondent no. 5 that an assurance stood given to him that the case would be considered and grievance redressed within a couple of days subject to the withdrawal of writ petition.
No notice of this application was directed to be issued by the learned Single Judge either to the appellants or to the official respondents and by the order dated 30.01.2019, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the respondent no. 5 to file a fresh one.
This order was behind the back of the appellants as well as the official respondents.
It is important to note that in terms of the order dated 19.04.2018 in LPAOW no. 232/2017 the Division Bench had directed maintenance of order of status quo till such time the writ petition was listed before the writ court. The writ court was specifically requested to consider the matter for grant or otherwise of the interim relief on the next date of hearing. The writ petition was never listed before the learned Single Judge and as such there was no consideration by the writ court in terms of the directions passed by the Division Bench.
In this view of the matter, the order of status quo of the Division Bench bound the parties. On 30.01.2019, therefore, there was no interim direction which had been passed by the learned Single Judge which could be vacated. The parties were bound by the order of status quo which had been passed by the Division Bench.
We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that after withdrawal of the writ petition and by misleading the learned Single Judge to issue an order directing vacation of interim direction, respondent no. 5 had illegally persuaded the official respondents to release rentals amounting to over Rs. 74.00 lacs on 15.03.2019 to him.
The above narration would show that the respondent no. 5 appears to have committed a fraud on the Court in having obtained a direction for vacation of the interim order in order to seek release of the amounts from the official respondents which invites initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt of Court.
Such conduct, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath reported as 1994 SCC (1) 1, would invite proceedings against the party for criminal contempt of court.
Issue notice to show cause to the respondent no. 5 as to why proceedings for criminal contempt of court be not initiated against him.
Haji Mohammad MaqboolNath/respondent no. 5, is present in Court, accepts notice and prays for a short date to file response.
At this stage, Mr. M. Y. Parray, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5, on instructions of his client Haji Mohd. Maqbool Nath submits that the respondent no. 5 may be permitted to deposit the full amount which he has withdrawn from the official respondents in this Court Mr. Parray stated that in order to show his bonafide, the respondent no. 5 will deposit an amount of Rs. 15.00 lacs in this Court within two weeks from today and remaining amount, out of the total amount of Rs. 74.00 lacs which he has received from the official respondents, in this Court within a period of two months from today.
Haji Mohammad Maqbool Nath/respondent no. 5 tenders an unconditional undertaking to make the deposit in terms of this statement.
We accept the statement on behalf of respondent no. 5 as well as undertaking given by Haji Mohammad Maqbool Nath. Haji Mohammad Maqbool Nath/respondent no. 5 shall remain bound by the statement on his behalf and undertaking by him. We direct the respondent no. 5 to deposit amount of Rs. 15.00 lacs within two weeks before the Registry of this Court and the remaining amount within a period of two months from today in terms of his undertaking.
Issue notice as to why the appeal be not admitted to hearing.
Mr. B. A. Dar, learned AAG accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. M. Y. Parray, Advocate, on behalf of respondent no.5.
List on 06.08.2019.