Suneeta Sharma vs Sh. Mahesh Bansal, Estate Officer, GMADA, SAS Nagar, Mohali & Ors

JASWANT SINGH, J.

The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of order dated 14/12/2015 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of

this court in CWP No. 1692 of 2015 (P-1)

It is the case of the petitioner that despite directions passed by the court, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to carry out an inspection

of the flat owned by the contempt petitioner i.e. House No. 4571-C MIG (S), Sector 70, Mohali however, till date no inspection has been carried out

and therefore, the respondents are required to be hauled up contempt.

On the other hand, it is apparent that the stand taken by the respondent-GMADA is that in due compliance of the order dated 14th of December 2015

passed by Hon’ble Division Bench, an inspection team comprising of Senior Architect of PUDA, Assistant Town Planner from the town and

country planning department and Sub Divisional Engineer was formed on 10.02.2016 and accordingly, the team went to the house in question on

25.02.2016. However, the inspection team had to return back as the house of the petitioner was found locked and therefore, the team again visited on

02/03/2016 and after thorough inspection of the site submitted its report on 16/03/2016 (A-2) to the office of Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA.

Further, a perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent-GMADA would show that necessary repairs etc have been proposed in order to rectify the

problems of the residents of the society including that of the petitioner. It has been mentioned that certain violations are non-compoundable, which are

required to be removed. In support of the same, the respondent-authority had placed on record the reports of the inspection committee, the proposals,

notices and other relevant documents as Annexure A1 to A7. Thus, it is the assertion of the respondents that no contempt is made as the order passed

by the Hon’ble Division Bench stands complied with.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

It is evident from the order dated 19th of August 2016 passed by this court that a local Commissioner was also appointed by the court to assess the

factual position on the spot. The local Commissioner, vide its report dated 24/09/2016 extensively mentioned about the violations which existed in the

premises in question and had also stated that it was the duty of the petitioner herself to do the necessary and routine maintenance of the premises in

question, but it is apparent that the same is not been done by the petitioner.

Further, a perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 14th of December 2015 would show that the petitioner was aggrieved

against the orders passed by the authorities concerned, whereby the allotment of the flat in question was cancelled on account of unauthorised/non

compoundable changes made in the said flat. The court, after delving into the matter in detail, came to a conclusion that it seems to be a case of

genuine difficulties of the petitioner, whereby she had to make some necessary changes in the flat in question to make it habitable. It was under these

circumstances that the court came to a conclusion that the authorities concerned should take a holistic view and look into the additions/alterations

made by the petitioner and compound the same as far as possible for better living condition of the contempt petitioner. However, the direction given by

the Hon’ble Division Bench was to the effect that inspections have to be made by the respondent-authority.

In essence, the contempt proceedings can only be initiated in case respondent-authority had not carried out inspection of the flat in question and in no

other situation. As has been observed earlier, the respondent-authority has come out with a category stand that inspection was indeed carried out by a

committee consisting of three aforementioned officials and the proposed suggestions/violations were forwarded to the competent higher authority. In

essence, the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench stands complied with. Not only this, in order to ascertain the factual position, this court

had even appointed a local Commissioner which had inspected the flat of petitioner and given its factual report regarding the existing position. Under

these circumstances, while exercising the jurisdiction of contempt court, no further indulgence can be granted to the petitioner, who, has been asserting

that her problems pertaining to the flat still persists. This is not the jurisdiction of the court, while exercising the powers under the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971. In case petitioner still has any other grievance, she has alternative efficacious remedy available to her.

In view of the what has been stated above, no contempt is made out against any of the respondents and consequently, the present contempt petition is

dismissed.

Rule accordingly stands discharged.