IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No. 15 OF 2011 Anwar Jamal Kazmi ……Petitioner. Versus Matwar Singh Kandari …Respondents. Present: Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. From the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent prima facie has committed a contempt of court, inasmuch as, there was a clear direction of this Court in its order dated 22.11.2010, certain activities which to be done at Peeran- E-Kalyar Sharif was stopped. The order was challenged in the writ petition being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 85 of 2010, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court with the following directions: “A work has been awarded to U.P. Project Corporation Ltd. for construction of R.C.C. overhead tank, for sinking of a tube well and for laying pipelines, etc. for the purpose of distribution of water at Dargah Sharif, Peeran-E-Kalyar situated in Roorkee, District Haridwar along with the work of beautification thereof and construction of parking spac, etc. The funds therefor are to be arranged by the Dargah itself. By the order impugned, as held out therein, the Minister in the Department of Social Affairs, Government of Uttarakhand, has directed stoppage of the said work without assigning any reason. On the basis thereof, the work has been stopped. In the order issued by the Collector, Haridwar on the basis of such direction of 2 the said Minister, it has been held out that the amount spent from the Dargah fund, in connection with the work in question, is being demanded back by the Waqf Board. 2. The said order, as appears to us, is not sustainable as the same is without any reason. We accordingly, set aside the said order dated 23rd October, 2010. The work in question shall continue ignoring the order dated 23rd October, 2010, but in accordance with law. 3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. This order will not prevent the appropriate authority to take appropriate steps or action, if it is deemed necessary, but in accordance with law.” The respondent though had knowledge of the aforesaid order as reference of the writ petition has been made in its letter dated 23.11.2010, whereby he has directed the concerned authority to stop the construction work, thereafter, in its letter dated 10.12.2010, the respondent has stated that now he will personally go to Piraan-E-Kalyar and stop the construction work. These two orders have, therefore, been passed in clear violation of the Court’s order dated 22.11.2010. Prima facie, this is a contempt of Court. However, it is necessary that notices be issued, first. Issue notice to the respondent to the respondent to be returnable within three weeks. Steps to be taken within one week. List this matter after vacations. In the meantime, response be filed by the respondents explaining as to why contempt proceedings 3 be not drawn against him for having committed contempt of Court. List this matter after vacations. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 7.1.2011 Rathour