COCP No.1179 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1179 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2009 Nathu Lal ......Petitioner Versus R.K. Rao, Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.15440-CII of 2009 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.15441-CII of 2009 CM is allowed. Documents are taken on record. CM No.15203-CII of 2009 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1179 of 2009 In the present contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent was bound by the directions passed by this Court on 7.3.2005 in CWP No.20394 of 2003. However, the respondent has failed to comply with the aforesaid directions and therefore, he is liable to be punished for contempt of this Court. I have perused the order Annexure P-1 which is alleged to have been violated by the respondent. Undisputedly, the petitioner is staying on the Govt. land unauthorisedly. When the respondent-administration tried to get the land COCP No.1179 of 2009(O&M) 2 vacated, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition in which the Administration filed an affidavit stating therein that the Administration is very serious in rehabilitating the petitioner as per the Scheme framed in this regard and the instructions applicable. In view of the aforesaid categoric stand by the Administration, vide judgment dated 7.3.2005 this Court observed as under: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the respective pleadings. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit shows that administration is very serious in rehabilitating the petitioners but of course in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and the instructions applicable in this regard. It has been categorically averred that the petitioners shall be shifted to a nearby village i.e Maloya and that the petitioners shall be accommodated temporarily and they shall also be provided the basic amenities in the same fashion. It has also been averred that the claim of the petitioners by way of application shall be considered by the contempt authority for the purpose of allotment of tenements in accordance with the terms of the scheme and of course, if found eligible. This entire exercise shall be carried out if the petitioners file application before the concerned quarters within one week from today and that a cautious and conscious decision shall be taken thereon by the concerned quarters within 15 days. In case the petitioners are found eligible in terms of the scheme and the relevant instructions issued by the administration, they would be rehabilitated accordingly within a period of COCP No.1179 of 2009(O&M) 3 15 months and that this period shall be extendable by another three months by the competent authority. It is made clear that apart from the petitioners, no other applicant shall be entitled to file any application before the competent authority and if any such application is filed, the same shall be rejected forthwith. During the interregnum period, the petitioners shall be accommodated in village Maloya by providing absolutely temporary facilities within a period of ten days from today and that the petitioners shall vacate the said premises in question within three days after the expiry of the aforesaid period of 15 months plus 3 months. It is clarified that if the facilities are provided prior to the period of ten days, the vacation period of three days shall count from the date the temporary facilities are provided.” It is the further case of the petitioner that nothing was done by the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioner and others and thereafter in the month of February, 2008, the respondent tried to uproot the petitioner and others from the present site i.e. Rajiv Colony and they moved CM Nos.4336 and 4337 of 2008 before this Court in CWP No.20394 of 2003 which were disposed of vide order dated 4.8.2008 along with CM No.1582 of 2008 filed in CWP No.3252 of 2005. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid civil misc. application, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.T. Administration had made a statement that the petitioner and others are protected under the order dated 7.3.2005 and in view of this statement, civil misc. applications were disposed of observing that nothing survives therein. COCP No.1179 of 2009(O&M) 4 Now it is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the aforesaid alleged statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the administration is uprooting the petitioner and others without making any alternative arrangement for them and hence, the respondent is liable to be punished for breaching the statement/undertaking made by its counsel before this Court. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of this petition. Vide order dated 7.3.2005, as reproduced herein above, the Administration had stated that the petitioners shall be rehabilitated in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and the whole exercise would be done within 15 months which could be extended by another three months by the Competent Authority and during the interregnum period, the petitioners shall be accommodated in village Maloya by providing absolutely temporary facilities and on expiry of the aforesaid period the petitioners shall vacate the said premises in question. Herein before this Court, there is no dispute that the petitioner and others were accommodated temporarily as per the order dated 7.3.2005 and it is not the grievance of the petitioner that he and others were not accommodated as per the aforesaid judgment. The grievance before this Court in this contempt petition is only to the extent that now they are being uprooted from the present site i.e. Rajiv Colony without providing the tenements as per the Rehabilitation Scheme as submitted by the respondent in the civil writ petition. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner has not been considered for the entitlement to the tenements as per the provisions of the Rehabilitation Scheme. The argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of COCP No.1179 of 2009(O&M) 5 the petitioner is without any substance. A perusal of Annexure-P4 attached with CM No.15441-C of 2009 would show that The Estate Officer. U.T. Chandigarh had called upon one Shiv Shanke to appear before the Screening Committee for allotment of alternative site to the Jhuggi dwellers of Gawala Colony, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh. In view of the aforesaid fact alone, it cannot be said that the claim of the eligible persons was not considered. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner has not placed before this Court any further document to show that what happened after passing of order dated 7.3.2005 and thereafter, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no order has been supplied to the petitioner regarding his claim and therefore, it is to be presumed that claim of the petitioner has not been considered. I am afraid this argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that from the documents produced on record, it is the case of the petitioner himself that he was called for considering his claim. Moreover, the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Administration before this Court was that the petitioner and others are protected under the order dated 7.3.2005 and on the basis of that statement, this Court had passed the order dated 4.8.2008 dismissing the application holding that nothing survived, meaning thereby, the petitioner and others were to be given protection under the parameters of the order dated 7.3.2005. Thus, the claim of the petitioner was considered and during the period of 18 months he was not uprooted and therefore, in my view, it cannot be held that the respondent was guilty of committing the Contempt of Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well settled that before punishing the respondent, it has to be proved on record beyond any doubt that the respondent was guilty of COCP No.1179 of 2009(O&M) 6 committing the contempt and if there is any doubt about wilful disobedience or breach of undertaking/statement of the respondent, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the respondent. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere in the present contempt petition. Rule is discharged. It is needless to say that the petitioner is free to avail any other appropriate remedy, if any, before the competent Court of jurisdiction. July 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE