15. Admittedly, the appellant was not a party in the writ petition wherein certain directions restraining grant of any permission to raise construction had been passed, nor the judgment passed in the writ petition attracted to the land in dispute. In the contempt petition grievance had been raised by Respondent 1 that the order passed in the writ petition had not been complied with in strict sense. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that under no circumstances, could the appellant be dealt with in contempt proceedings and no order adversely affecting it, could have been passed. Exercise of contempt jurisdiction may have very serious repercussions as basically these are quasi-criminal proceedings in nature and are resorted to punish a person who wilfully disobeys the directions issued by the court. In the instant case, even by a stretch of imagination, it cannot be assumed that the appellant could be subjected to the contempt proceedings. Before us, none of the counsel appearing for the respondent could point out as under what circumstances the Notifications dated 17-1-1997 and 10-12-1999 could be applicable to the land of the appellant. The land in dispute is located about 20 km away from the area described under those two notifications.
No comments:
Post a Comment