Latest news with #ContemptofCourtsAct
Scroll.in
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Gujarat HC issues contempt notice to Junagadh municipal officials for demolishing dargah
The Gujarat High Court on Friday issued a contempt notice to former Junagadh Municipal Commissioner Om Prakash and Senior Town Planner Vivek Kiran Parekh for allegedly acting in defiance of a Supreme Court order and a state government policy by demolishing an old dargah in April. The court asked the officials to respond to the notice by July 28, when the matter will be heard next. The Jok Alisha Dargah in Junagadh was demolished on April 17 despite a pending legal case and submissions by the dargah's trustee citing the site's historical and religious significance, The Indian Express reported. The shrine is claimed to be 300 years old. A division bench of Justices AS Supehia and RT Vachhani observed that the civic officials appeared to have acted in violation of the Supreme Court's 2018 order regarding the handling of unauthorised religious structures as well as a subsequent policy of the state government. The High Court pointed out that the Supreme Court had ordered that no unauthorised religious structure should be allowed on public property and that existing ones should be reviewed on case-by-case basis. A 2024 state government policy requires officials to form committees and appoint nodal officers to handle such cases properly, the petitioner had argued. Despite this, the senior town planner issued a notice on January 31, demanding documents to prove the shrine's ownership within three days. The petitioner had submitted the records on February 3 along with references to the 2018 Supreme Court order and pending proceedings before the High Court. A final notice was issued on April 9, asking for the removal of the structure within five days. The trustee responded to the notice on April 15, reiterating the historical value of the shrine. However, the structure was demolished on April 17. The court was hearing a contempt plea filed by the shrine's trustee under the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act. The dargah, located at Gandhi Chowk, is registered under the Gujarat State Waqf Board. It was registered in 1964, the petitioner said. 'Further, annual Urs celebrations have also been held with prior permissions, including the use of loudspeakers,' The Indian Express quoted the petition as saying. According to the plea, the Junagadh civic body ignored the Supreme Court's directive and a pending civil petition before the High Court while proceeding with the demolition.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Gujarat HC issues contempt notice to Junagadh Municipal Corporation officers
Stating that the officers of the Junagadh Municipal Corporation had 'prima facie acted in defiance' of the directions of the Supreme Court as well as a subsequent policy of the state government in demolishing a 300-year-old Dargah, the Gujarat High Court on Friday issued a contempt notice to the then Municipal Commissioner Om Prakash and Senior Town Planner Vivek Kiran Parekh. The court was hearing an application moved by the Trustee of the Jok Alisha Dargah, a registered (Waqf) trust, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for 'non-compliance and disobedience' of a 2018 order of the apex court. A Division Bench of Justice A S Supehia and Justice R T Vachhani, in an oral order on Friday, issued the notice based on the 2018 order to remit cases of 'existing unauthorized construction of the religious nature' to the respective High Courts. The petition, filed in May this year, challenged the midnight demolition of the 300-year old dargah on April 17 by the Junagadh civic body, following multiple notices issued by the Senior Town Planner, contending that the civic body 'did not consider' the reliance on the SC order as well as the fact of a pending civil petition before the High Court in the matter. Stating that the dargah was registered as Jok Alisha Dargah Trust on April 8, 1964, the petition states, 'The Jok Alisha Dargah has been situated at Gandhi Chowk in Junagadh since before India's independence and is about 300 years old. The Muslim community and other devotees have regularly performed religious rites and observances at the Dargah. Further, annual Urs celebrations have also been held with prior permissions, including the use of loudspeakers.' The petition relied on the order by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the High Courts concerned must supervise the implementation of the interim orders of the apex court in matters of regularization of the existing religious structures on public places, which had been under deliberation before the Supreme Court since 2006. The Gujarat HC order on Friday stated, 'It appears that the Supreme Court, initially passed an order on September 29, 2009, directing that by an interim measure, no unauthorized construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc., on public streets, public parks or other public places. Further directions were issued that the unauthorized construction of the religious nature, which had already taken place (prior to the order), the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on a case-to-case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible…' The 2018 order of the top court also stated that 'the interim orders wherever passed, shall continue, until the matters are considered by the High Court'. The Gujarat HC order also referred to a state government policy dated April 19, 2024 that stipulates the constitution of committees by the Municipal Commissioner and District Collectors, as well as the appointment of Nodal Officers. The policy empowers the committee to prescribe various steps, such as the removal, relocation, and regularisation of unauthorised constructions. The court order noted that the Senior Town Planner of the Junagadh civic body issued a notice on January 31 this year to the petitioner for removing the alleged unauthorised dargah and called upon the petitioner for submission of necessary documents pertaining to the ownership within three days. The petitioner replied and complied, by submitting documents on February 3, 2025, also 'pointing out the directions issued by the Supreme Court along with the relevant documents about the ownership and the local authorities… referencing also to the proceedings pending before this Court (in a 2006 Special Civil Application)…' The court further noted that the Senior Town Planner issued a 'last notice' on April 9, 2025, calling upon the applicant to remove the disputed structure within five days. While the petitioner replied on April 15 this year reiterating the request and pointing out that the dargah had been there for the last 300 years, on April 17, the respondents demolished it. The court order stated, 'Prima facie, at this stage, we are of the opinion that the respondents have acted in defiance of the directions of the Supreme Court and the Policy dated April 19, 2024. Since liberty is reserved in favour of the respective High Courts to proceed in Contempt if any of the directions issued by the Supreme Court are violated, we deem appropriate to call upon the respondents… Issue notice (to the two respondents), making it returnable on July 28.' Earlier in June, Prakash was transferred and appointed as the District Collector of Rajkot while Tejas Parmar took over as the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Tiswadi mamlatdar gets HC notice over fund recovery lapse
Panaji: The high court has issued a notice to the mamlatdar of Tiswadi, asking to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated for wilfully disobeying its orders of Oct 2023. The Morombi-O-Grande Tenants Association, Merces, through its chairman Shamir Coutinho, went to the HC alleging disobedience of the HC order directing the mamlatdar to initiate proceedings for the recovery of money. The money was allegedly misappropriated by an earlier managing committee of the association as arrears of land revenue, according to an auditor's report. The mamlatdar, in an inquiry, observed that the earlier managing committee abused its powers, misappropriated funds, and failed to maintain accounts. Harmful acts to agricultural lands were also alleged. The association went to the HC in 2023, stating that the mamlatdar only directed the association to register an FIR against the erstwhile managing committee. The mamlatdar, the association said, didn't exercise the powers of recovery of the misappropriated amount, which was around Rs 69 lakh, according to the auditor's report. The association said that the mamlatdar himself ought to have registered the FIR and initiated proceedings for the recovery of the misappropriated amount. On Oct 11, 2023, the HC directed the mamlatdar to initiate proceedings against the erstwhile managing committee for the recovery of the money. The division bench comprising justices Mahesh Sonak and Bharat P Deshpande directed the mamlatdar to complete the exercise within a year.
Time of India
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Contempt case: Kunal excused from appearing before HC
1 2 Kolkata: Calcutta High Court on Monday dispensed with the personal appearance of Kunal Ghosh and other accused in a contempt of court case concerning a ruckus in front of chambers of high court lawyers at Old Post Office Street and Kiran Shankar Roy Road on April 25. The division bench of justices Arijit Banerjee, Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rajarshi Bharadwaj excused the personal appearance upon an undertaking that the alleged contemnors would appear as and when directed by the court. Senior counsel for the accused, Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, opened his argument by pleading that the bench didn't have the jurisdiction to issue a contempt rule. "The CJ on his administrative side assigned the matter to the special bench. It was not a judicial order," he argued. Citing rules under the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Act, 1975, Bandyopadhyay pleaded that the HC could issue a contempt rule on "its own motion" after hearing petitions of contempt that were moved before the bench. Bandyopadhyay pointed out that no such petition had been moved before the division bench of CJ TS Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) a day after the incident.
United News of India
16-06-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC stays Calcutta High Court's suo motu contempt proceedings against police officials
New Delhi, June 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court today stayed the Calcutta High Court's order initiating suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against several West Bengal police officials in connection with the alleged assault on lawyers at the Howrah District Court complex in April 2019. A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by the implicated police personnel and a connected plea by the State of West Bengal challenging the maintainability of the High Court's suo motu contempt action after a five-year delay. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for the petitioners, questioned the legality of the High Court's decision, arguing that under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a one-year limitation applies even to suo motu contempt proceedings. He relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Maheshwar Peri v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2016), which held that the limitation period applies uniformly, whether contempt is brought to court by a private party or taken up on the court's own motion. ' The apex court, after hearing preliminary submissions, issued notice and ordered that a notice be issued, returnable in six weeks. "In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to the order dated May 2, 2025, shall remain stayed," the judges said. The case pertains to the incident of April 24, 2019, when lawyers at the Howrah District Sadar Court were allegedly assaulted by police personnel who reportedly entered the court premises without authorisation. Following public outcry, the Calcutta High Court took suo motu cognisance of the incident and, in May 2019, appointed former judge Justice K. J. Sengupta as a one-man commission to conduct an inquiry. However, the High Court revived the matter only recently, based on the findings of the Sengupta Commission. In its May 2, 2025 order, the High Court proceeded to initiate contempt action against the concerned police officials. The petitioners argued that the contempt proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the Calcutta High Court, in its order, took a different view. It stated, 'The bar of limitation as in Section 20 of the 1971 Act, according to us, is in respect of proceedings initiated by individuals bringing to the notice of the Court an act of contempt. The whole object of such limitation is to ensure diligence on the part of the complainant. But the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, where the Court itself initiates suo motu proceedings, cannot be curtailed by Section 20, particularly in view of the Court's inherent powers.' Despite this interpretation by the High Court, the Supreme Court has now intervened and stayed the operation of the May 2 order, pending further consideration. The case will be heard next after six weeks. UNI SNG SSP
