(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) The applicants have filed this contempt petition alleging that respondents and in particular respondent no.2 Municipal Commissioner, Surat disregarded the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court dated 2.12.2011 in Writ Petition(PIL) No.161/2011.
The petitioners are hutment dwellers apprehending their dispossession by the Municipal Commissioner of Surat. Some of these petitioners along with a socially active organisation called "Zumpadpatti Bachav Sangathan" had filed above-mentioned Writ Petition(PIL) No.161/2011.
On behalf of Surat Municipal Corporation, learned counsel Shri P.G. Desai appeared before the Bench and pointed out that some 1600 forms (for allocation of alternative sites) were distributed amongst hutment dwellers and without considering their application, no steps would be taken for dispossessing them. On this basis, Division Bench disposed of the petition giving following directions :
"Since already 1600 forms have been distributed, we dispose of this application by passing only this direction that without considering the application or representation which have already been submitted by the hutment dwellers, no coercive steps would be taken for dispossessing them. Before taking any steps, the fate of the application or representation should be communicated to the applicants."
The present applicants complaining that without considering the representations made by them the authorities of Surat Municipal Corporation in presence of Commissioner used force to demolish their huts, filed the present contempt petition.
In response to the notice issued, learned counsel Shri Prashant Desai appeared with Shri Kaushal Pandya for respondent no.2. A detailed affidavit also came to be filed to which the petitioners also have filed rejoinder. Though from the record, it emerges that out of seven applicants of this contempt petition, applicants no.1,5,6 and 7 had applied for such form and they also have been allotted alternative site, applicants no. 2,3 and 4 never filled up such forms and have therefore, not been allotted any alternative sites.
Counsel for the applicants however, relying on the additional affidavit dated 25.4.2012 filed on behalf of the applicants contended that representation dated 19.9.2011 was made by Republican Party of India, Zumpadpatti Bachao Sangharsh Samiti along with applicants no.1,2,5 and 7 herein. Such representation was never disposed of. Respondents therefore, breached the order of the Court passed in public interest litigation.
Learned counsel Shri Desai under instructions of Shri Gosawala, Junior Engineer of Surat Municipal Corporation stated that such representation was also disposed of and a communication thereof was sent to the Republican party of India at its given address. He pointed out that representation was general in nature pertaining to several locations of hutment dwellers in Surat. One of these pertains to Mafatnagar in respect of which public interest litigation was filed.
Having perused the materials on record, we are of the opinion that no contempt is made out. When the Division Bench issued above-quoted directions on 2.12.2011 particularly, what was in mind was the forms that the Corporation distributed amongst hutment dwellers for allotment of alternative sites. Even then we had, to satisfy ourselves, verified from the Corporation Authority regarding the fate of the representation dated 19.9.2011. Such representation also having been considered and disposed of, no question of contempt arises. Counsel for the Corporation stated under instructions that remaining three applicants who have not been alloted site because they did not file necessary forms and if they apply even now, their cases will be considered.
Counsel for the applicants however, submitted that the allotment made is at a site which is not habitable. He submitted that the applicants would like to pursue their remedies under law. It is always open for the applicants to file such proceedings as may be available under the law to voice their grievances.
Insofar as present contempt petition is concerned, however, we find no merits in the matter. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L.
Soni,J.) (raghu) Top