AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
\
Amrita Sinha, J
The petitioners have filed the instant contempt application alleging violation of the direction passed in the judgement dated 12th October 2018. By the said judgement, the respondent authorities were directed to execute the necessary Deed of Transfer of the subject apartment in favour of the petitioners within a stipulated time. The petitioners were given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for compensation and damages against the respondents, if so advised.
In compliance of the order passed by this court, the respondents by a communication dated 13th February 2019 have forwarded a copy of the draft Lease Deed and have indicated their willingness to execute the same in their favour. The petitioners have been requested to contact the office for completion of the necessary official formalities in order to execute the deed at the earliest.
It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the draft Deed that has been forwarded in favour of the petitioners is for a period of 99 years only.
The petitioners tried to canvas before this court that the expression 'necessary' will, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, be the balance period of the tenure lease which the respondents are holding as lessee. The petitioners have relied upon the Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition 2005 to highlight the meaning of the expression 'necessary' wherefrom it appears that the word 'necessary' means indispensable, requisite, unavoidable and inevitable.
The petitioners pray for execution of the Lease in their favour for the balance period of the tenure of lease, which the KMDA is holding at the moment.
The petitioners refer to a judgement delivered in the case of - Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors. -vs- State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2008) 4 SCC in support of their stand.
The petitioners further refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of - Prithawi Nath Ram -vs- State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261 wherein the court held that in a contempt proceeding the court cannot examine the rightness or wrongness of that order nor can it add or delete any direction. The court was of the opinion if the parties aggrieved by the order, which in its opinion, is wrong or against the Rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court, render the party liable for contempt. The court further held that while dealing with an application for contempt the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceeding. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.
In the instant case, the respondent KMDA was directed to execute the necessary Deed of Transfer in favour of the petitioners. The period for which the Deed of Transfer could have been executed was not mentioned in the order. The KMDA has thought it fit and has forwarded the draft Lease agreement for 99 years. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same and submit that the lease period, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, ought to have been the balance period for which the KMDA was holding the land as lessee.
What would have been the necessary tenure for the Lease in question has to be decided in a fresh proceeding. Fixing a tenure for which the lease may be executed would amount to review of the order. The same will amount to traversing beyond and adding something which was not there in the order alleging contempt. Prithawi Nath Ram (supra) will stand in the way of doing so.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of J.S. Parihar -vs- Ganpat Duggar & Ors. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 have clearly laid down that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The action of the respondent may be wrong or may be right or the same may not be in conformity with the direction but that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review.
In this case, it does not appear from the action of the respondents that there has been wilful, deliberate or intentional violation of the direction passed in the judgment dated 12th October 2018.
Accordingly, the instant contempt application being CPAN 639 of 2019 stands dismissed.
The petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the fresh cause of action that has arisen, in accordance with law, if so advised.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.