High CourtsDivision Bench

Narendra Sharma vs Shri Siddharath Mahajan And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 14 May 2019 · Citation: (2019) 05 RAJ CK 0119

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammad Rafiq, J · Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Contempt Petition No. 1655 Of 2018 In Civil PIL (Writ) No. 22467 Of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 302 words

This contempt petition has been filed alleging noncompliance of the order of this Court dated 19.2.2018.

This Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner as public interest litigation, directed that status quo as it exists today, shall be maintained by both the parties.

According to the petitioner, the Collector, Tehsildar and other official respondents are not taking steps to ensure compliance of the aforesaid order. Petitioner has placed on record certain photographs to allege that construction activities are being carried out by certain private persons.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have taken the necessary steps to prevent any construction activities in the area in question. A letter was issued by SubTehsildar to Assistant Engineer, JVVNL, Govindgarh on 2.4.2018 informing about the status quo order of this Court dated 19.2.2018 in relation to khasra no.364 of Village Malikpur, Chomu. The Assistant Engineer, JVVNL was restrained for giving any electricity connection on the aforesaid land. When the inspection was carried out, it was found that one Nand Kishor S/o Rameshwar Lal was undertaking certain construction activities. He was informed of the status quo order passed by this Court and was asked to refrain from making any construction activities. A mauka fard was prepared, which is Annexure-2C/2. It is contended that khasra nos. mentioned by the petitioner are in fact recorded in the khatedari of the private persons, who were all aware of the status quo order.

Having regard to the reply filed by the respondents, we do not find any case for willful or deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court. The respondents' counsel submitted that they shall exercise necessary vigil to ensure the compliance of the status quo order during the pendency of the writ petition.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed and the notices stand discharged.