IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- (1) CIV. CONTEMPT PET. No. 16 of 2006 M/S NASRUDDIN BHATI & SONS V/S GORDHAN RAM (2) CIV. CONTEMPT PET. No. 16 of 2005 M/S NASRUDDIN BHATI & SONS V/S RK SAXENA & ORS Mr. RANJEET JOSHI, for the petitioner (in CCP No.16/06) Mr. RAKESH ARORA, for the petitioner (in CCP No.16/05) Mr. DD THANVI, for the respondent Mr. KL THAKUR, AAG. Date of Order : 12.9.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Both these contempt petitions are closely interrelated, and arise out of the same series of litigation, and therefore, are being decided by this common order. The facts involved in the case have a long history, and are very involved, or have been made involved, so as to give rise to various litigations, and confusions, and in that process different orders have come to be passed by different authorities, so also by this Court, from time to time, in different litigations. However, I venture to recapitulate the facts, as emerge from Contempt Petition No. 16/2005, and other documents as are available on the file of both the contempt petitions. The facts as disclosed by the petitioner are, that some quarry license was issued on 22.11.1978 in favour of one Shri Abdul Wahid, who transferred the same to M/s. Nasruddin Bhati & Sons, for which a quarry license holder submitted an application on 14.12.1995, to the Mining Engineer for transfer, which was accepted vide order dt. 10.7.96. Against this order dt. 10.7.1996, the widow of Abdul Wahid, Smt. Jamila, filed a revision before the State Government, alleging interalia that Abdul Wahid had died on 3.12.1995, and therefore, he could not submit application for transfer on 14.12.1995. That revision was allowed vide order dt. 22.3.1999, whereby the order dt. 10.7.1996 was set aside, and the matter was sent to the Mining Engineer, with a direction to enter the names of legal representatives of Abdul Wahid. It is a different story, that in para 3 of the contempt petition it is pleaded, that the Government vide order dt. 22.3.1999 had cancelled the quarry license. Against this order dt. 22.3.1999 two remedies were pursued by the petitioners, one being regular suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Makrana, for declaration and permanent injunction, and the other being, filing of Writ Petition No. 4117/2001 (described in contempt petition as Writ No. 4217/2001). Along with the suit the petitioner filed an application for temporary 2 injunction, which was allowed by the two learned courts below, and finally S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 888/2000 was filed by Jamila, which was disposed of vide order dt. 26.2.2003, wherein while directing the learned trial court to decide the suit expeditiously, this Court declined to interfere with the interim order passed by the two learned courts below, and ordered, that situation as it existed on that day, shall continue to operate, until final decision of the suit. This order has been produced in Contempt Petition No. 16/2005 as Annexure-4, and in Contempt Petition No. 16/2006 as Annexure-2. It is from this point of time, that the controversy and confusions have started emerging or being created. Contempt Petition No. 16/2005 seeks to contend, that notwithstanding this order dt. 26.2.2003 passed in Civil Revision No. 888/2000, the Government has passed the order dt. 22.10.2003 filed as Annexure-5 in Contempt Petition No. 16/2005, likewise it is also alleged that the contemnor no.2 (pleaded in para-8 of the contempt petition as respondent no.3) passed the order dt. 12.7.2005, by which the name of respondent no.3 Jamila has been ordered to be entered in the license, as legal heir of Abdul Wahid, and this entering of the name to be subject to the order passed in the suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.). This order has been produced in Contempt Petition No. 16/2005 as Annexure-6. It is contended, on the basis of 3 the order dt. 26.2.2003, that it was not open to the contemnors to pass these two orders, nor was it open to the respondent no.3 Jamila, to seek such orders. Then, in Contempt Petition No. 16/2006 the contention is, that despite the existence of the said order dt. 26.2.2003, referred to above, passed in Civil Revision No. 888/2000, the contemnor has addressed a communication to the S.H.O. Makrana, to oust the petitioner from their legal possession over the quarry in question. Replies have been filed in both the contempt petitions, and various documents have also been filed in support of the reply, and in Contempt No. 16/2005 a rejoinder has also been filed, being rejoinder to the reply to the respondents no. 1, 2 and 4. From perusal of the documents, it further transpires, that against the order dt. 22.3.1999, passed by the State Government, the petitioner availed two remedies, one being of the present suit, and the other being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4117/2001. In the temporary injunction matter, arising out of the suit, being Revision No. 888/2000 the above order dt. 26.2.2003 was passed, and the said Writ petition No. 4117 was disposed of vide order dt. 7.8.2003, i.e. after about six months of the order dt. 26.2.2003, and what is significant to note is, that in this 4 order dt. 7.8.2003, which is available on record of Contempt Petition No. 16/2005, as Annexure R/4, at page-68, that thereby the order dt. 22.3.1999 was set aside, and the matter was sent back to the concerned Dy. Secretary of the Mining Department of the State, with a direction to parties to appear before the said Dy. Secretary on 4.9.2003, to submit their arguments supported by documents if any, and thereafter, the Dy. Secretary was directed to finally dispose of the matter in accordance with law, within three months. It is significant to note that in this order dt. 7.8.2003, there is no mention, or reference, to the order dt. 26.2.2003, apart from the fact, that both the orders have been passed by the same Hon’ble Bench. What is further significant to note is, that with passing of the order dt. 7.8.2003, since the order dt. 22.3.1999 had been set aside, as on that date, the civil suit which was pending had become meaningless, as the very basis of the suit had gone away, with the obvious result, that as the things stood consequent upon the order 7.8.2003, the suit, and the interim orders, passed in connection therewith, lost all their rigor and force. Of course, in compliance of the order dt. 7.8.2003, the State Government was required to pass fresh order, in accordance with law, which order might be an order of re-affirmance of the order dt. 22.3.1999, or an order at variance with the order dt. 22.3.1999, and 5 obviously, whatever order was to be passed in compliance of the order of this Court dt. 7.8.2003, would have been subject to challenge by the party aggrieved, in accordance with law. It is in this sequence, that regarding the order produced as Annexure-5 in the Contempt No. 16/2005, passed by the Dy. Secretary, it is required to be comprehended, that if the Dy. Secretary would not have passed the order in compliance of the order of this Court dt. 7.8.2003, then he would have exposed himself to the proceedings of disobedience of the order dt. 7.8.2003, and the order dt. 7.8.2003 do not make any positive direction to the Dy. Secretary to pass any particular order, i.e. order at variance with the order dt. 22.3.1999. Obviously meaning thereby, that in compliance of the order dt. 7.8.2003, the authorities concerned were competent to pass appropriate order, finally disposing of the revision, in accordance with law. In my view, with giving this direction on 7.8.2003, to repeat, all interim orders, passed in connection with the suit, including the order dt. 22.10.1993, all lost its rigor and force. In that view of the matter, when the order Annexure 5, in Contempt Petition No. 16/2005 has been passed in compliance of the order of this Court dt. 7.8.2003, it cannot be said, that the authorities have committed any contempt, in passing the order Annexure 5, in Contempt Petition No. 16/2005. So far the order dt. 12.7.2005, produced as 6 Annexure-6, in Contempt Petition No. 16/2005 is concerned, again in the suit, application for amendment is said to have been filed seeking to incorporate the challenge to the order dt. 22.10.2003, and today it is informed, that that amendment application has been allowed, and the suit has been amended. However, it also transpires, that to challenge the order dt. 22.10.2003, another Writ Petition No. 6105/2003 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dt. 15.4.2005, available on record of Contempt No. 16/2005, as Annexure R-5, at page-71, and a look at that order shows, that the writ petition was dismissed, on the ground, that the same order is under challenge in civil suit filed by the petitioner, being Suit No. 26/2000 (29/99), in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Makarana. Thus, the challenge to this order dt. 22.10.2003, failed in this Court, not on merits, but on the ground of pendency of civil suit. It is not shown to this Court, that after passing of the order dt. 22.10.2003, and after amendment in the plaint, any fresh interim injunction was ever passed by that Court or by this court. That being the position, obviously, since order Annexure-5 in Contempt Petition No. 16/2005 was passed in compliance of the order of this Court dt. 7.8.2003, that order was required to be complied with, by the authorities subordinate, who have passed the order Annexure-6 in Contempt No. 16/2005, in compliance of the order Annexure-5, and since the compliance of order Annexure-5 has not been stayed by any authority, or the 7 Court, it cannot be said, that in passing the order Annexure-6, the respondent no. 2 has committed any contempt. Thus, in my view, no contempt is made out in Contempt Petition No. 16/2005. Coming to the Contempt Petition No. 16/2006, according to the contempt petition, the contemnor had addressed the communication on 28.4.2006, produced as Annexure-3. According to the averments of the contempt petition, thereby the contemnor disobeyed the order dt. 26.2.2003 (produced as Annexure-2), and by order dt. 12.7.2005, the quarry license of the petitioner was deliberately transferred by the contemnor, and the contempt petition no. 16/2005 was filed, wherein on 18.1.2006 notices were issued, which fact was published in the news- paper, and still, the communication was addressed, whereupon a notice was got served, through the Advocate Shri Rakesh Arora, for initiation of contempt proceedings, on 23.5.2006. Suffice it to say, that as found above, no contempt was committed in passing the order dt. 12.7.2005, and so far the order dt. 26.2.2003, is concerned, as found above, in view of the order of this Court dt. 7.8.2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 4117/2001, and the fresh order dt. 22.10.2003 (Annexure-5 in Contempt No. 16/2005), the order dt. 26.2.2003 (Annexure-2 in this contempt) lost all 8 its rigor and force. Even at the cost of repetition, it is significant to point out, that both the orders dt. 26.2.2003, and the order dt. 7.8.2003, have been passed by the same Hon'ble Bench. In that view of the matter, the present communication Annexure-3 cannot be said to be tentamounting to any contempt. It is a different story, that according to the reply of the contemnor, immediately on receipt of legal notice, the communication dt. 28.4.2006 had been recalled vide letter Annexure R/3 dt. 29.5.2006, and vide Annexure R/2, intimation of this fact was also given to the learned counsel Shri Rakesh Arora, in response to his notice. It was also pointed out in Annexure R/2, that against the order dt. 7.8.2003 D.B. Special Appeal No. 647/2003 had also been dismissed on 16.10.2003. Thus, the net out come of the aforesaid discussion is, that in either of contempt petitions, no contempt is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order passed by me on 6.2.2007, in Civil Writ No. 5693/2005. From a reading of this order it transpires, that this order was passed, believing the story about the order dt. 26.2.2003 to be in force, and subsisting, and without informing, about the fact of 9 subsequent order dt. 7.8.2003, and the consequential orders dt. 22.10.2003, having been passed. In that view of the matter, this order dt. 6.2.2007 also, does not help the petitioner to make out any contempt, and it cannot be said to be inuring to any additional benefit of the petitioner, as it has not been obtained after complete disclosure of facts to this Court. Both the contempt petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Learned trial court, however, is again reminded to decide the suit most expeditiously. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/ 10