COCP No.428 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.428 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2009 Smt. Amarjit Kaur and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus H.I.S Garewal, IAS, Deputy Commissioner Mohali ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.5638-CII of 2008 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.428 of 2008 As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners who claim themselves to be riot victims, filed CWP No.12427 of 1993 in this Court claiming their entitlement to the allotment of sites on the ground that similarly situated persons were granted the similar relief. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 4.8.2006 with a liberty to the petitioners to file representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Mohali, appending all the documents in support of their claim within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the aforesaid order. On receipt of the representations, the Deputy Commissioner, Mohali, was to look into the COCP No.428 of 2008 (O&M) 2 pleas raised by the petitioners and keeping in view the various policies issued by the Government with regard to 1984 riot affected persons and was directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law by passing a detailed and speaking order within a period of 4 months of the receipt of the representations. It is the further case of the petitioners that except the petitioners, 66 other similarly situated persons were given the relief. However, in the case of the petitioners, no decision has been taken and the respondent, who was the then Deputy Commissioner, Mohali, passed an order dated 5.6.2007 sending the case of the petitioners to the Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) with a request to decide the representations of the petitioners and thus, he wilfully and knowingly violated the order passed by this Court as he failed to take decision himself on the representations of the petitioners as directed by this Court and therefore, was liable to be punished for contempt of this Court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply by way of affidavit of the respondent was filed wherein it has been submitted that in obedience to the order of this Court, 52 persons filed representations in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mohali, before his predecessor, whereas total of 53 petitioners had filed petition in this Court Apart from that, 6 more applications were submitted by the applicants who were not parties before this Court. The above representatists were called for personal hearing and after hearing them and perusing the record, it came to his notice that the matter was solely linked with the policies of the Punjab Urban Development Authority/ Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and in that regard, being an independent authority, only the PUDA/GMADA was competent to decide these representations with regard COCP No.428 of 2008 (O&M) 3 to the allotment of plots/shops belonging to GMADA/PUDA. In view of the above submissions, all the representations were transferred to Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority with a request to decide the same at the earliest so that the orders of this Court could be complied with. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the booths/shops allotment of which is sought by the petitioners belong to PUDA/GMADA. It is also not in dispute that the PUDA/GMADA are statutory/autonomous Authorities and are regulated under the provisions of the statute. Since it was not within the competence of the respondent to allot the booths in question to the petitioners, it cannot be said that the respondent violated the directions wilfully issued by this Court vide judgment dated 4.8.2006 while transferring the representations to the competent Authority. It is well settled that civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be said to have been committed only in case the alleged disobedience is wilful on the part of the respondent. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it cannot be said that the respondent had wilfully refused to pass the orders. Even otherwise, the respondent was to pass a speaking order in accordance with law and admittedly, he has passed a speaking order dated 5.6.2007 giving reasons of his incompetence to decide the matter. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed Rule discharged. September 7,2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE COCP No.428 of 2008 (O&M) 4