Anil Kumar Kalra vs Dr. Richa Verma, Deputy Commissioner

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order/ judgment dated 21.11.2019, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3179 of 2019, whereby this Court while disposing of the writ petition having been filed by the petitioner, directed the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the order/judgment. Since, no positive steps, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of respondent No.2 for implementation of aforesaid direction issued by this Court, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.

On 8.9.2020, this Court while issuing notice to the respondent directed the learned Additional Advocate General to file reply/compliance affidavit. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, learned Additional Advocate General informed this Court that judgment/order alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with because representation having been filed by the petitioner stands finally decided. Besides above, learned Additional Advocate General also informed this Court that appropriate action, in accordance with law, stands taken against the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 qua the encroachment over the government land and being aggrieved with the eviction order passed by the authority concerned, petitioner has already approached the court of learned District Judge, who has stayed the eviction order passed by the competent authority under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act.

Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to disposal of representation filed by him pursuant to the order/ judgment alleged to have been violated, contends that representation having been filed by the petitioner has been not decided in transparent fair manner, rather attempt has been made by the authorities to help/favour respondent No.5.

Since, there was only direction to decide the representation and same stands decided, question with regard to correctness of the order passed by the competent authority on the representation filed by the petitioner cannot be gone into the instant proceedings, rather same is required to be laid challenge in the appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court of law, if required and advised.

Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly same are closed. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.