This contempt petition arises from the interim order dated 11.02.2014. The interim relief sought for in the writ petition was in the following terms :
“This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to remove the obstructions they have made in the pathway of the petitioners seen in Exhibit P2 series photographs, pending disposal of the writ petition”.
2. After considering the matter, following interim order came to be passed on 11.02.2014, vide Annexure A1.
“Urgent notice. There will be an interim order as prayed for.
The second respondent is directed to file an affidavit before this Court as to the averments and allegations and also as to the course and events pursuant to the verdict passed by the Civil Court.
Post after three weeks.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the concerned respondent has paid only scant regards to the interim order, which amounts to wilful disobedience and it is liable to be proceeded under the Contempt of Court Act.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the writ petition was filed without disclosing the actual facts and figures and in the said circumstances, immediately on passing ex-parte interim order on 11.02.2014, I.A. No. 3013 of 2014 has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition seeking to vacate the interim order. Despite the several postings thereafter, the matter is still to be considered and no orders have been passed in I.A. No. 3013 of 2014 till date.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is no much dispute with regard to the sequence of events, as to the postings and proceedings filed before this Court. Interim order dated 11.02.2014 was an ex-parte interim order, which was passed while admitting the matter ordering notice to the parties concerned. Within three days thereafter, the respondents sought to bring the factual position to the notice of this Court, producing copies of the relevant documents by filing I.A. No. 3013 of 2014, seeking to vacate the interim order. No order has been passed in the said I.A. so far. The consequences under such a situation is discernible from Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows :
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs :
****** ******
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner is made on, on in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without ------
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
By virtue of the mandate under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, once an ex-parte order is passed, if the party appears and files an application, seeking to vacate the order, appropriate orders have to be passed within 'two weeks' thereafter, failing which, the interim order will stand automatically vacated.
6. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to proceed under the Contempt of Court Act and the same is closed accordingly. The rights and liberties of the petitioner to obtain appropriate orders are left open.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)