Alizan vs C. Ravishankar & Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 03.03.2022, rendered by the learned Single Judge, in Civil Misc. Contempt Application No.73 of 2020, preferred by the appellant.

By the impugned order, the said contempt proceedings were closed and notice issued to the respondents was discharged. The appellant preferred the said contempt application to claim that the respondents have deliberately and willfully violated the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.101 of 2013 on 20.06.2018, whereby the Registrar, Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies was directed to ensure the restoration of the Society’s land as per the order dated 28.03.2014.

The appellant preferred the contempt application alleging that under the garb of the said order passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.101 of 2013 on 20.06.2018, he has been physically dispossessed from the land.

Upon issuance of the notice, the compliance affidavit was filed by respondent nos.1 and 2. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order took note of the stand taken by respondent no.2 in Paragraph No.7 of the affidavit and, thereafter, proceeded further which reads as follows:-

“3. From the averments made in the aforesaid compliance affidavits, this Court is satisfied that substantial compliance of the order of writ court has been made, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this contempt petition pending.

Accordingly, contempt petition is closed. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged”.

To claim that the present special appeal is maintainable against the dismissal of the contempt application, learned counsel for the appellant has sought place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Midnapore Peoples’ Cooperative Bank Ltd. & others vs. Chunilal Nanda & others, (2006) 5 SCC 399”, and in particular Paragraph 11 (V) thereof, which reads as follow:-

“11 (V.) If the High Court decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (f the order was of a Single Judge and there was a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution (in other cases)”.

On a plain reading of the impugned order, it is clear to us that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order has not issued or made any direction, relating to merits of the dispute between the parties. The learned Single Judge has not made any observation on the title claim made by the appellant in the contempt proceeding.

Aforesaid being the position, the present appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

Since we find that the present special appeal is not maintainable, we are not going into the aspect of delay.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.