COCP No. 2166 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 2166 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 3.8.2010 Bhakra Beas Management Board ......petitioner vs. Mritunjay Parshad and another ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. B.Ganeshan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) CM No. 19157-CII of 2009 Application is allowed. Affidavits of Shri R.K. Chowdhry, Estate Officer and Shri Harminder Singh, Executive Engineer are permitted to be taken on record. In view of the averments made in the reply of Shri R. K. Chaudhary, the contempt notice issued to Shri R.K. Chowdhry and Shri Harminder Singh is discharged. CM No 18929-CII of 2010 Application is allowed. Additional affidavit and Annexures R-6/1 to R-8/1 are permitted to be taken on record. COCP No. 2166 of 2009 The petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of COCP No. 2166 of 2009 (O&M) -2- this Court alleging violation of the orders dated 4.10.2007 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4191 of 2007. The said writ petition was at the instance of the respondents herein challenging the proceedings initiated by the present petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') for eviction of Piare, predecessor in the interest of the respondents from the public premises i.e., quarter No. 33-D Nangal Township. The said petition was allowed by the learned Estate Officer on 8.11.2006. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 23.12.2006 and the writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 4.10.2007. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the possession of the quarter in question has been delivered to the petitioner, though it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has not joined in handing over the possession of the property so as to enable the petitioner to prepare inventory of the articles provided in the quarter. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the damages in terms of the order passed by the Estate Officer has not been deposited, therefore, the respondents are still in violation of the order passed by this Court. The order passed by the Estate Officer was directing the respondent to give the possession and pay damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the quarter . Such order can be executed by the petitioner in the manner prescribed under the Act. The mere non-payment of damages will not be sufficient to continue the present contempt proceedings. COCP No. 2166 of 2009 (O&M) -3- In view of the said fact, I do not find any further orders are called for in the present contempt petition. The same is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to its remedy for recovery of the damages from the Authority under the Act. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 3.8.2010 preeti