Smt. Kamla Gangot and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

This is a petition for contempt alleging non-compliance of the order, pronounced on 1.8.2007 passed in L.P.A. No. 430 of 1999(R), whereby a Division Bench this Court had ordered that the competent authority shall commence the enquiry by strictly following the provisions of the Act and finish the said enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The Division Bench had further observed that as the competent authority itself admitted that in pursuance of the order dated 1.10.1992, the authority took possession of the land on 18.11.1992, which was reflected in the order dated 23.11.1992, it would be appropriate to deliver the possession of the land in question to the appellants, who are admittedly the land owners, without any delay. The appeal, thus, had been allowed, in view of the aforesaid order.

This petition for contempt, therefore, hoi been filed by the petitioners who were respondents in the appeal alleging that the competent authority is not proceeding with the enquiry and they have also committed contempt by not delivering back the possession of the land in question to the appellants/petitioners in this contempt petition.

On a plain reading of the impugned judgment, it can be instantly noticed that the respondents have failed to comply with the order passed by the Division Bench. However, this position was explained by learned Counsel for the respondents - Mr. A.K. Mehta, who submitted that toe respondent - Ranchi University, had preferred an appeal by way of a SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, bearing SLP (C) No. 10175-10176 of 2008. The said SLP although was dismissed, it was observed therein that the competent authority will hear the dispute of the matter, in accordance with (sic), within a period of four months, from the date of the order, passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. However, it was further ordered fiat during pendency of the enquiry, by the competent authority, the petitioners will not be dispossessed, Obviously, this order had the effect of confirming the order, passed by the Division Bench wherein it was ordered that the possession of the disputed land be delivered back to the applicants herein and protection was also clearly granted in favour of the petitioner/respondents herein - Ranchi University to retain possession during pendency of the enquiry. Thus, it is clear that the order passed by the Division Bench impliedly got modified when protection was granted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court not to disturb the possession of the Ranchi University from the land in question.

In the wake of this situation, the plea of the applicants for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents is clearly not sustainable. Learned Counsel, however, still emphasized that at least the enquiry proceeding should continue on a day to day basis and the respondents are left with no excuse in regard to this part of the submission and hence this part of the order obviously gives rise to a cause for contempt against the competent authority who had to proceed and complete the enquiry, as the enquiry had been ordered to be completed by order of the Division Bench, passed in L.P.A. No. 430 of 1999(R), as also by order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (C) No. 10175-10176 of 2008, referred to herein-before since the order passed by the Division Bench to complete the enquiry stood confirmed even by order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Hence we see no reason, why the enquiry has not been completed expeditiously.

It is, however, explained on behalf of the competent authority that steps have been taken to complete the enquiry proceeding, but even if this position is correct, it was appropriate for the competent authority to at least seek extension of time from the Court which had ordered to complete the enquiry, within a period of four months, which has not been done. A case of contempt, prima facie therefore is made out against the competent authority for not proceeding with the enquiry. Hence, the counsel representing the competent authority shall explain by way of a reply as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against the respondents-competent authority for not complying with the order in regard to the enquiry.

This petition be, therefore, listed in the Month of March, 2010.