XXX vs Sumit Sattawan And 2 Ors

The matter is taken up through video conferencing.

Heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the Gauhati High Court. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. B

Gogoi, leanred counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.3 in Cont Case (Crl) (Suo Moto)

1/2021. Also heard Mrs. SB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in PIL 21/2020.

This contempt petition was fixed for hearing today. By order of this Court dated 30.03.2021, charges had already been framed against all the

respondents. Meanwhile, the respondent No.3 has filed a SLP being SLP (Crl) No.3614/2021 before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Although the Apex

Court did not interfere in the contempt proceeding and the petition was dismissed on 29.06.2021, all the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order

dated 29.06.2021 has made certain observations which have to be considered by this Court. The order dated 29.06.2021 of the Hon’ble Apex

Court reads as under:

“ORDER

We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and brought to his notice that the stage of the contempt proceedings is of framing of charge

and thus, we would not like to interfere at this stage in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Learned senior counsel submits that as per his instructions, an extra floor was constructed but that has been demolished and the remaining additional

construction is compoundable. If that be the position, in our view, it is for the petitioner to point this out to the Court as there can be no quibble with the

proposition that compoundable deviation may be compounded according to norms on payment of charges.

Learned counsel also points out that his appeal before the appellate authority has been dismissed merely on account of that fact that the matter is

pending before the High Court.

If that be the position, the High Court would be required to examine the contention of the petitioner whether he has actually removed the unauthorised

construction and the remaining construction is compoundable or not.

It is always open to the petitioner to challenge the appeal order before the High Court which can then be tagged and heard along with the contempt.

The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications stand disposed of.â€​

Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the Gauhati High Court states that on a perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated

29.06.2021, it appears that entire facts were not placed before the Apex Court by the petitioner (respondent No.3 herein) in the SLP (Crl) 3614/2021,

inasmuch as, although the charges in this case were already framed on 30.03.2021, what was stated before the Hon’ble Apex Court was that the

matter was fixed for framing of charge.

Mr. Mahanta would also point out to the report of the Executive Officer of Silchar Municipal Board which categorically states that respondent No.3

has made construction in violation of the building bye-laws and amongst various illegalities, the construction which was allowed to cover only 40% of

the total land area, whereas as per the report, 71.38% of the total land area has been covered. Learned senior counsel for the Silchar Municipal

Board, Mr. S Dutta has very fairly stated before the Court that he got report from the Board and as per the said report, the construction made by the

respondent No.3 cannot be compounded.

We, however, do not express any opinion on this aspect, particularly in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order dated

29.06.2021.

The learned senior counsel for the respondent No.3, Mr. DK Mishra submits that he needs to challenge the order of the appellate authority.

Consequently, we adjourn the matter for one week.

List again on 26th July, 2021.