IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.1505 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.09.2008 Jai Kanwar ..................Petitioner Versus Dr. Buta Singh and others .............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. PERMOD KOHLI J.(ORAL) ********* These contempt proceedings have been initiated for the alleged violation of the order of the Civil Court dated 07.02.2007 and the order dated 12.05.2008. It is deemed appropriate that both these orders are noticed:- “Appearance on behalf of defendant made. Date requested. Now W.S. and reply to stay application be filed on 23.03.2007. Till then defendants are restrained from carving our minure pits in the suit land.” “Both the defendants submit that they will file resolution/authority letter on the next date of hearing alongwith the reply. Now, the case is adjourned to 09.06.2008 for filing reply. In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copies of certain decisions of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and communication addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, District Sonepat, Haryana as also to the Government of India, National Commission for Scheduled Castes. These orders/decisions were pursuant to a complaint lodged by Smt. Karmo Devi who is not even a party before the Civil Court. C.O.C.P. No.1505 of 2008 -2- It is also admitted position that the respondents in the present contempt petition are not parties before the Civil Court. Respondent No.1 is the Chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes whereas respondent Nos.2 to 4 are its Members and respondent No.5 is a complainant before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have prompted the police authorities as well as the Deputy Commissioner to violate the Civil Court's order and to achieve the object. They have even visited the spot and issued certain directions including the action by way of coercive method to force the administration to violate the Court's order. According to petitioner, all the respondents have the knowledge of passing of the injunction by the Civil Court and despite that they are bent upon rather they have attempted to violate the Civil Court's order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as K.S. Villasa Vs. M/s Ladies Corner AIR 1999 SC 2140 wherein contempt proceedings were initiated against a person for associating with the parties to the suit in violation of the Court direction. Another judgement relied upon is Vir Bhan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1973-77(2) Supp. C.L.R 296 of Delhi High Court wherein following observations have been made:- “It is settled that in case of contempt by disobedience of prohibitive order of the Court in order to justify committal it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted, if it be proved that he had notice of the order aliunde, as by telegram or news paper report, or otherwise and knew that it was intended to be enforced vide Bunna Prasad and others V. The State of U.P. and another, C.O.C.P. No.1505 of 2008 -3- A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 1348. In 43 C.J.S. Article 261 page 1009, it is stated “Where, however, a party has actual notice of an injunction, clearly informing him from what he must abstain, he is bound by the injunction from that time, and will be punished for a violation thereof, even though it may not have been served, or may have been served on him defectively. It is altogether immaterial, how defendant acquires information of the existence of the injunction; when once he has been apprised of the fact he is legally bound to desist from what he is restrained and inhibited from doing.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to a communication dated 08.03.2007 from the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat to the Under Secretary, Government of India, National Commission for Scheduled Castes wherein a reference is made to the Court order, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant averment made therein:- “The matter is under consideration in the Court and the Court on 07.02.2007 has stayed the matter. The case is listed for hearing on 20.03.2007. As per the order of the Court, further action will be taken in the matter.” Further reference is made to another communication from Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat dated 31.03.2008 addressed to the Research Officer, National Commission for Scheduled Castes wherein following averments have been made:- “Besides this the land case is pending in the Court. As per the case, the version of Tyagi party is that the land is not for fertilizer potholes but belongs to the Panchayat. The case is fixed in the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonepat and there is a stay against Panchayat. The C.O.C.P. No.1505 of 2008 -4- investigation report of Superintendent of Police, Sonepat is annexed therewith.” Based upon above, it is stated that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 were made aware of the Civil Court's order and despite that they have violated the Court order. The Commission i.e. the National Commission for Scheduled Casts is constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution of India and the Commission has certain jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution to look into and examine the matter and even pass appropriate directions. It is contended that the Commission has no jurisdiction to pass such directions, however, this argument is totally fallacious as in contempt jurisdiction no adjudication can be made with regard to the powers of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner has the right to seek appropriate remedy from any competent Court/Forum. As far as the alleged violation of the Court order is concerned, being a constitutional body Commission is not a party to the proceedings before the Civil Court. It is not a case where this Court is required to initiate proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 4, Members of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. Since respondent No.5 is a complainant and is also not a party to the civil suit and no overact is attributed to her, no contempt proceedings can be initiated against her also. For the above reasons, I do not feel it proper to issue process. Contempt Petition dismissed. September 26, 2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) Pankaj* JUDGE