Case Note & Summary
The Petitioners filed a Contempt Petition alleging wilful disobedience of an order dated 19.10.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.747/2014. The dispute pertained to access to a paddy field and construction being carried out by Respondent no.1 on adjacent land. In the Writ Petition, Respondent no.1 had undertaken to maintain a three-metre wide unobstructed access, and the petition was disposed of as withdrawn with an observation that if any construction was carried out in breach of the approved plan, the appropriate authority could take action. The Petitioners thereafter initiated contempt proceedings, contending that Respondent no.1 violated the undertaking and that Respondents 2 and 3 (Town Planner and Secretary of the Village Panchayat) failed to discharge their statutory duties by not stopping the alleged violation and revoking the license. Respondents 2 and 3 raised preliminary objections that they were not parties to the original Writ Petition and had not given any undertaking. The Court noted that Respondent no.2 was not a party to the original petition and the undertaking was given solely by Respondent no.1. The observation in the order left it to the appropriate authority to take action, but that did not constitute a specific direction to Respondents 2 and 3. Moreover, a civil suit was pending between the parties where the Petitioners could agitate their grievances. The Court held that the contempt petition was not maintainable against Respondents 2 and 3 and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience of Undertaking - Maintainability Against Non-Parties - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The Petitioners sought contempt against the Town Planner and Panchayat Secretary for alleged breach of an undertaking given by the sole Respondent (since deceased) in a Writ Petition; the Court held that the Respondent nos.2 and 3 were not parties to the original Petition and the undertaking was given only by Respondent no.1, therefore no case of wilful disobedience was made out against them, and the contempt petition was dismissed. The Court also noted that the Petitioners could pursue remedies in the pending Civil Suit (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether contempt proceedings lie against Respondents 2 and 3 for alleged breach of an undertaking given by Respondent no.1 in a writ petition where directions were given to appropriate authority to take action in case of breach of approved plan.
Final Decision
The contempt petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Law Points
- contempt jurisdiction
- wilful disobedience of court order
- undertaking must be given by the party against whom contempt is sought
- non-parties cannot be held in contempt for undertaking of another
- civil suit pending as alternative remedy
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 124
Contempt Petition No. 18 of 2017
Gaurish Agni, E. Usapkar, J. Godinho, Priyanka Kamat, Vivek Rodrigues
Chandrawati M. Gawade and Shashilant M. Gawade
Digambar Vasudev Naik (since deceased), Shri Vinod Kumar Chandra (Town Planner), Mr Sushant Naik (Secretary, Village Panchayat)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of court order passed in writ petition.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought initiation of contempt proceedings and punishment against Respondents for disobedience of order dated 19.10.2016.
Filing Reason
Alleged violation of undertaking given by Respondent no.1 to maintain three-metre wide access and failure of Respondents 2 and 3 to take action against construction in breach of approved plan.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 19.10.2016 in Writ Petition No.747/2014 where the petition was disposed of as withdrawn following undertaking by Respondent no.1 to maintain a three-metre wide unobstructed access, with observation that appropriate authority may take action if construction in breach of approved plan.
Issues
Whether contempt petition is maintainable against Respondents 2 and 3 who were not parties to the original writ petition and did not give any undertaking.
Whether the alleged failure of the Town Planner and Panchayat Secretary to act constitutes wilful disobedience of the court order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that Respondent no.1 violated the undertaking and Respondents 2 and 3 failed in their statutory duties to stop the violation and revoke the license.
Respondents 2 and 3 contended that they were not parties to the original petition, no undertaking was given by them, and the civil suit was pending where the Petitioners could seek remedies.
Respondent no.3 contended that he acted as per technical clearance of Respondent no.2 and had no power to override it.
Ratio Decidendi
Contempt proceedings are not maintainable against persons who were not parties to the original proceeding and did not give any undertaking or were not subject to any specific direction. Observations in an order leaving it to the appropriate authority to take action in accordance with law do not constitute a direction to specific officials, and breach of such observation does not amount to contempt. If a civil suit is pending, the aggrieved party should pursue remedies in that suit.
Judgment Excerpts
The Respondent no.2 was not a party to the Petition and it was only the Respondent no.1 who had made a statement before this Court assuring to keep a three metre wide access...
In any event, it is always open to the Petitioners to pursue their remedies before the Civil Court which is seized of the proceedings.
The application is found wanting in merits and is therefore dismissed.
Procedural History
The Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.747/2014 challenging the order of the District Judge-2, Panaji which had set aside an interim injunction granted in their favour in a civil suit. In that Writ Petition, Respondent no.1 undertook to maintain a three-metre wide unobstructed access. Based on that undertaking, the Petitioners withdrew the petition and the Court passed an order on 19.10.2016 disposing of the petition with an observation that if construction was carried out in breach of approved plan, appropriate authority could take action. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed Contempt Petition No.18/2017 alleging wilful disobedience of the order and seeking punishment for contempt.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
