Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Ratnakar K. Chandorkar, filed a contempt petition alleging that respondents 1 to 3 (officers of Pune Municipal Corporation) wilfully breached an undertaking given to the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2189 of 1997. That writ petition concerned the alleged misuse of a parking place of Hotel Sweekar in Pune for restaurant extension. The Division Bench had disposed of the writ on 6.11.1997 recording an undertaking by the Corporation's counsel that respondents 1 to 3 would enquire and take action if the parking place was used for other activities. The petitioner claimed no action was taken. The court noted that the contempt petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold because the alleged contemnors were not impleaded by their names, which is essential for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Even on merits, the respondents' counsel placed on record a notice dated 18.7.1998 issued to the hotel, demonstrating compliance with the undertaking. The court held that there was no wilful breach and dismissed the contempt petition.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Non-Joinder of Contemnors - Section 2(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Contempt petition dismissed at threshold because the alleged contemnors were not impleaded by their names; it is necessary to name the officers sought to be punished. (Paras 2A-3)
B) Contempt of Court - Compliance with Undertaking - Section 2(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Even otherwise, the respondents had already issued a notice dated 18.7.1998 to the hotel regarding misuse of the parking area, showing compliance with the undertaking; hence no contempt. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by wilfully breaching the undertaking given to the court regarding the use of a parking place.
Final Decision
The contempt petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 2(b)
- Necessity of naming contemnors
- Compliance with undertaking
- Dismissal for non-joinder
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 184
Contempt Petition No. 249 of 1998 in Writ Petition No. 2189 of 1997
Ms. Manda Loke for Shriram S. Kulkarni for Petitioner; Mr. R.M. Patne for Mr. R.G. Ketkar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Mr. A.H. Palekar for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Shri Ratnakar K. Chandorkar
The Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation; The City Engineer, Town Planning, Pune Municipal Corporation; The Development Head, Encroachment Section, Pune Municipal Corporation; The Commissioner of Police, Pune; State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court in a writ petition concerning misuse of a parking place.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought punishment of respondent nos. 1 to 3 for contempt of court under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that respondent nos. 1 to 3 did not follow the undertaking furnished to the court in Writ Petition No. 2189 of 1997 and wilfully acted in breach.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No. 2189 of 1997 was decided by a Division Bench on 6.11.1997, recording an undertaking by the Corporation's counsel that respondents 1 to 3 would enquire and take action if the parking place was used for other activities.
Issues
Whether the contempt petition is maintainable when the alleged contemnors are not impleaded by their names.
Whether the respondents committed contempt by wilfully breaching the undertaking.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondents 1 to 3 did not follow the undertaking and wilfully breached the court order.
Respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed as contemnors were not named, and they had already issued a notice dated 18.7.1998 to the hotel, showing compliance.
Ratio Decidendi
A contempt petition must name the alleged contemnors; failure to do so renders the petition liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Additionally, if the respondents have taken action in compliance with the undertaking, no contempt is made out.
Judgment Excerpts
This Contempt Petition was required to be dismissed at the threshold for the simple reason that none of the alleged contemnors have been impleaded by their names.
Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 has placed on record a copy of the notice dated 18.7.1998 addressed to the hotel... and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have wilfully acted in breach of the undertaking.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No. 2189 of 1997 was decided on 6.11.1997 by a Division Bench. The present contempt petition was filed in 1998 alleging breach of the undertaking given in that writ. The petition was heard and dismissed on 18.2.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 2(b)
