Pramod Agarwal Vs. Mining Area Development Authority and ors - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
inthehighcourtofjharkhandatranchi cont.case(civil)no.55of2013 pramodagarwal . petitioner versus 1.krishnakishore,thechairmancummanagingdirectorof mineralareadevelopmentauthority,dhanbad 2.stateofjharkhand .... oppositeparties coram: honblemr.justiced.n.patel forthepetitioner :mr.shailesh,advocate foroppositepartyno.1 :mr.bhaweshkumar,advocate forthestate :j.c.tog.a. 03/dated:15 th april,2013 1. learnedcounselappearingforthepetitionersubmittedthattheplans for the construction of residential unit was placed before the opposite partiesintheyear2011andfornojustifiablereason,theoppositeparties haveremaineddormantandsilent,despitetheorderpassedbythiscourt inearlierwritpetitionbeingw.p.(c)no.3864of2012dated15thoctober, 2012.2. learnedcounselforoppositepartyno.1submittedthatadetailed counteraffidavithasbeenfiledandtheplanshavenowbeensanctioned, today. it is also submitted that opposite party no. 1 has tendered unconditionalapologyinparagraph1andinsubsequentparagraphs.3. havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe facts andcircumstancesof the case, itappearsthatthe opposite parties havedeliberatelycommittedbreachoftheorderpassedbythiscourt.the mapswhichwerepresentedbytheoriginalpetitionerintheyear2011for the construction of the dwelling unit were neither approved nor disapprovedand,therefore,thew.p.(c)no.3864of2012waspreferredby thisapplicant.thiscourtpassedanorderdated15thoctober,2012thatthe decisionmustbetakenbytherespondents,inaccordancewithlawwithina periodoffourweeks.nosuchdecisionhasbeentaken,asperthedirection ofthiscourtandthisapplicanthasnooption,buttofilethiscontempt application.thememoofthiscontemptapplicationwasalsoservedupon the learned counsel for the opposite parties on 17th january,2013, but, oppositepartyno.1hasnotcompliedwiththeorderpassedbythiscourt intheearlierwritpetition.infact,thereishugepriceescalationwhichwill havetobebornebythepetitioner,unnecessarily,whichmayrunintofew 2 hundredthousands,but,asthecounselforoppositepartyno.1issaying thatthiswillnotberepeated,atthistime,thiscourtisnottakingaction againstoppositepartyno.1underthecontemptofcourtsact.4. inviewoftheaforesaidfacts,thiscontemptapplicationis,hereby, disposedofastheorderisnowcompliedwithatmuchbelatedstage.such typeofattitudeofoppositepartyno.1shouldbeavoidedsothatcitizens maynothavecometothiscourt,againandagain. (d.n.patel,j.) ajay

Judgment:
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cont.Case(Civil)No.55of2013 PramodAgarwal . Petitioner Versus 1.KrishnaKishore,theChairmancumManagingDirectorof MineralAreaDevelopmentAuthority,Dhanbad 2.StateofJharkhand .... OppositeParties CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner :Mr.Shailesh,Advocate ForOppositePartyNo.1 :Mr.BhaweshKumar,Advocate FortheState :J.C.toG.A. 03/Dated:15 th April,2013 1. Learnedcounselappearingforthepetitionersubmittedthattheplans for the construction of residential unit was placed before the opposite partiesintheyear2011andfornojustifiablereason,theoppositeparties haveremaineddormantandsilent,despitetheorderpassedbythisCourt inearlierwritpetitionbeingW.P.(C)No.3864of2012dated15thOctober, 2012.

2. Learnedcounselforoppositepartyno.1submittedthatadetailed counteraffidavithasbeenfiledandtheplanshavenowbeensanctioned, today. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 1 has tendered unconditionalapologyinparagraph1andinsubsequentparagraphs.

3. Havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe facts andcircumstancesof the case, itappearsthatthe opposite parties havedeliberatelycommittedbreachoftheorderpassedbythisCourt.The mapswhichwerepresentedbytheoriginalpetitionerintheyear2011for the construction of the dwelling unit were neither approved nor disapprovedand,therefore,theW.P.(C)No.3864of2012waspreferredby thisapplicant.ThisCourtpassedanorderdated15thOctober,2012thatthe decisionmustbetakenbytherespondents,inaccordancewithlawwithina periodoffourweeks.Nosuchdecisionhasbeentaken,asperthedirection ofthisCourtandthisapplicanthasnooption,buttofilethiscontempt application.Thememoofthiscontemptapplicationwasalsoservedupon the learned counsel for the opposite parties on 17th January,2013, but, oppositepartyno.1hasnotcompliedwiththeorderpassedbythisCourt intheearlierwritpetition.Infact,thereishugepriceescalationwhichwill havetobebornebythepetitioner,unnecessarily,whichmayrunintofew 2 hundredthousands,but,asthecounselforoppositepartyno.1issaying thatthiswillnotberepeated,atthistime,thisCourtisnottakingaction againstoppositepartyno.1undertheContemptofCourtsAct.

4. Inviewoftheaforesaidfacts,thiscontemptapplicationis,hereby, disposedofastheorderisnowcompliedwithatmuchbelatedstage.Such typeofattitudeofoppositepartyno.1shouldbeavoidedsothatcitizens maynothavecometothisCourt,againandagain. (D.N.Patel,J.) Ajay