Latest news with #ContemptofCourtsAct
Hindustan Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Flagging ‘blatant breach', SC closes contempt against DDA
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in contempt for illegally felling over 1,000 trees in Delhi's Ridge area without its permission, calling the move a blatant breach of environmental norms and judicial orders. However, the court spared stringent action against top DDA officials, citing the 'overwhelming public interest' served by a new road leading to a multi-specialty hospital for the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the illegal tree-felling for the road to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS) was a 'classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach.' 'It is only the overwhelming public interest served by the establishment of CAPFIMS that has, in effect, overshadowed the sheer administrative incompetence and blatant disregard for both established procedures and the orders of this court,' the bench observed. The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Delhi resident Bindu Kapurea. In March, it had dismissed the DDA's application seeking permission to fell trees in the Ridge area, noting that many of the trees had already been cut. The 1996 judgment in MC Mehta vs Union of India makes it mandatory for prior approval from the Supreme Court for any tree-felling in the ecologically sensitive Ridge. DDA's internal inquiry had named executive engineer Manoj Kumar Yadav, officials Pawan Kumar and Ayush Saraswat, and superintendent engineer Pankaj Verma for suppressing facts from the court. While sparing them imprisonment, the court imposed an environmental fee of ₹25,000 on each, directed departmental action, and issued an official 'censure.' 'These acts... fall squarely within the ambit of 'criminal contempt' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,' the court said. 'It is the good fortune of the concerned DDA officials that this larger objective has weighed in their favour, without which this court may have been compelled to adopt a far more stringent approach and deal with an iron fist,' it added. To prevent future violations, the bench mandated that all orders or notifications relating to tree felling, afforestation, or construction activity with ecological impact must explicitly mention any pending cases before the court. 'This direction is being issued to ensure that, in future, the plea of ignorance is not taken as a defence,' the order stated. The petition, argued by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and assisted by advocate Manan Verma, detailed how trees were felled in February 2024 under orders from Delhi lieutenant governor VK Saxena, issued under the Delhi Protection of Trees Act. The tree felling was completed before DDA's application for permission was even heard on March 4. The court was later told that Saxena only became aware of the felling in June, when informed by the DDA vice-chairperson. 'Such actions raise fundamental concerns about governance and accountability,' the court said. 'We truly hope that these proceedings have been conducive to incorporating necessary course corrections by the DDA and other bodies.' To compensate for the environmental damage, the court accepted DDA's proposal to undertake a large-scale afforestation drive over 180 acres. A court-nominated panel—comprising former Indian Forest Service officer Ishwar Singh, ex-principal chief conservator of forests Sunil Limaye, and environmentalist Pradip Kishen—will inspect the land and recommend suitable native species, planting methodology, and post-care maintenance. The Delhi government's forest department has been directed to implement the plantation, while DDA will bear the costs. The court ordered biannual progress reports from the DDA and Delhi government, complete with photographs and videos. It also asked both agencies to implement a separate expert report recommending steps to enhance Delhi's green cover. As a further safeguard, the court allowed the Delhi government and DDA to identify whether the new road had disproportionately benefited any affluent individuals and to levy a one-time charge on them in proportion to the construction cost. The court, however, cleared the way for completion of the road project. 'The die is cast, and what is done cannot now be undone—any refusal to put institutions like CAPFIMS to optimal use or to undo road construction at this stage risks not only undermining public interest but also squandering significant public resources,' it noted. The bench concluded by acknowledging the necessity of such medical facilities for paramilitary forces, stating, 'Such institutions... are not a privilege but an imperative necessity.' Despite DDA's violations, the court accepted that its actions were in good faith and in service of the welfare state's moral compass.
New Indian Express
25-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Talangana HC warns Rangareddy collector over contempt in pay scale case
HYDERABAD: Justice T Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court has pulled up Rangareddy District Collector C Narayana Reddy for failing to comply with a prior court order regarding the payment of minimum scale of pay to three office subordinates. The court has granted a final four-week deadline for compliance, warning that failure to act could invite punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. The contempt proceedings stem from an earlier high court order dated April 2, 2024, directing the authorities to process the petitioners' claims for minimum pay scale in light of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others. The ruling mandates that temporary workers performing duties similar to those of permanent employees should receive equal pay for equal work. Despite clear directions, Narayana Reddy, who was then the Nalgonda district collector, passed a 'speaking order' on August 5, 2024, rejecting the petitioners' representations. He cited the petitioners' lack of employment in regular sanctioned posts as grounds for denial. In response, the petitioners' counsel argued that the collector's stand was a deliberate deviation from the high court's order. Justice Madhavi Devi observed that the IAS officer had intentionally overlooked the SC ruling and failed to apply the legal standards laid down in the April 2 order.
The Hindu
23-05-2025
- The Hindu
Madras High Court holds former Coimbatore Collector, DRO and RDO guilty of contempt
The Madras High Court has found former Coimbatore Collector Kranthi Kumar Pati (now serving as Tamil Nadu Skill Development Corporation Managing Director), District Revenue Officer M. Sharmila and Revenue Divisional Officer P.K. Govindan guilty of contempt of court and directed them to pay ₹10,000 each from their salaries to the contempt petitioner. Justice P. Velmurugan also held Coimbatore North Tahsildar Manivel guilty of contempt and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment besides paying an amount equivalent to his monthly salary as compensation to the petitioner. The sentence was, however, suspended for the limitation period of 30 days when an appeal could be filed. The judge purged Village Administrative Officer Yamuna alone from the contempt proceedings initiated by 74-year-old senior citizen John Chandy in 2024 for having not complied with the orders passed by the court on November 8, 2023 to consider the petitioner's plea to remove illegal entries from the 'patta' related to his immovable property located at Chinnavedampatti village. In his counter affidavit to the contempt plea, Mr. Pati told the court that he got transferred from the post of Coimbatore Collector in February 2025 and that he tenders unconditional apology to the court for not having complied with the order passed by the court in 2023 to conduct an inquiry with respect to the petitioner's plea and dispose it of within two months. However, observing that the counter affidavit was not satisfactory, the judge held that Mr. Pati, Ms. Sharmila and Mr. Govindan, being superior officers, had failed to ensure that tahsildar Manivel complied with the court orders within the stipulated time. 'It is clear that the respondents one to four have deliberately disobeyed the order under contempt. They cannot be absolved,' the judge concluded. Three more Tahsildars sentenced Allowing yet another contempt of court petition filed by P. Shankar in 2024, Justice Velmurugan found Chengalpattu Tahsildar Venkataraman guilty of having wilfully not obeyed an order passed by the court on February 28, 2024 to consider the petitioner's request for grant of patta. The judge sentenced the Tahsildar for one month of simple imprisonment. Further, the Tahsildar was directed to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 from his salary to the petitioner failing which he would have undergo 10 more days of simple imprisonment. The judge, however, suspended the sentence for the limitation period of 30 days provided under the Contempt of Courts Act for filing an appeal against the conviction before a Division Bench of the High Court. Further, dealing with a third contempt plea filed by G. Murugathal, the judge sentenced Coimbatore Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Shri Malathi, Madukkarai Tahsildar A. Sathyan and Vellalur Village Administrative Officer to one month of simple imprisonment and directed them too to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 each to the petitioner, or in default, undergo 10 more days of imprisonment.
Hindustan Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC slams Delhi govt over vacancies in Delhi Pollution Control Committee
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday slammed Delhi government over vacancies in the Delhi Pollution Control Committee and directed it to fill all the posts by September this year. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said of the total 204 vacancies as of now only 83 were filled. "We cannot tolerate the laxity shown by the Delhi government especially when Delhi is worst affected by air pollution. We direct the state to ensure that all 204 vacancies are filled up by September 2025. Affidavit to be filed by October 15. If all vacancies are not filled in it will be a case of aggravated contempt," the bench said. The top court also directed the Delhi government to start the process of filling anticipatory vacancies six months in advance. During the hearing, the counsel appearing for Delhi government sought six months time and assured to fill the posts by end of the year. The court, however, asked,"Why end of the year? The board is setup by the government. Government can't say they'll take six months to fill in. In the affidavit it's not even written when the process will start. When the advertisement will be published, etc." Calling it a sorry state of affairs, the apex court on May 8 chided governments of Delhi and adjoining states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan for not filling vacancies in their pollution control boards. It then issued contempt notices to the chief secretaries of Delhi, UP, Haryana and Rajasthan over the non-compliance of its August 2024 order asking them to fill the vacancies by April 30 this year. The top court pointed out 55 per cent posts were vacant in the Delhi pollution control committee saying it was shocking that the body was "virtually defunct". Issuing notices, the apex court ordered the officials to explain why shouldn't they be punished under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non compliance. The chief secretaries, in turn, were ordered to showcause why they should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The apex court also took into account the 21 per cent vacant posts in Central Pollution Control Board and directed filling them by August, 2025. "It is necessary to look into the functioning of SPCBs as well as committees. Perhaps they must be using old technology and equipment. We direct CAQM to conduct a study on these aspects. CAQM shall work on this aspect and make its recommendations by end of July and forward the same to CPCB as well as PCBs of Haryana, RJ, UP and Delhi. Based on the recommendations necessary action shall be taken by them by acquiring proper equipment," it said. The top court also underlined the shortage of officials in the Commission for Air Quality Management and directed the Centre to ensure filling vacancies by August 2025.
Hindustan Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC frames contempt charges against Punjab director rural devp
The Punjab and Haryana high court has framed contempt of court charges against Punjab director rural development, Uma Shankar Gupta, in a case of delay in the promotion of an employee. The high court bench of justice Harkesh Manuja while seeking a response from Gupta posted the matter for his response on May 22 while ordering that 'charges under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are ordered to be framed against Mr Uma Shankar Gupta, IAS, Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab.' Section 10 deals with the power of HC to initiate contempt proceedings and Section 12 with punishment for the offence under the 1971 Act. If convicted, he may be fined up to ₹2,000 or jailed for six months or both. The plea was from one Hardeep Singh, a panchayat secretary. He joined the post in 1994. In 2012, many of his colleagues especially those juniors to him were promoted. But his case was kept pending for want of a report from the vigilance department. A petition was filed by him disputing the seniority list for promotion, which was disposed of in April 2024 by the court with a direction that he would approach the department and his representation would be decided within three months. After the order was not complied with, he filed a contempt petition in January 2025, which was also disposed of on February 27 with the direction that he would appear before the department on March 3 with an undertaking that no enquiry was pending against him. The court also ordered that if needful is not done, a fine of ₹50,000 would be imposed on the officers concerned, which would be recovered from them. When the order was still not complied with, another application was moved by the petitioner on April 2. The HC ordered the attachment of the salaries of concerned officers till the time of compliance. It was after this that the rural development department passed an order on May 13, granting the petitioner promotion from January 2025 and the court was informed on May 14. Appalled by the department's promotion order, the court said that for the past 13 years, neither any report was obtained from the vigilance by the department nor even any letter/correspondence/complaint was ever sent by the vigilance against the petitioner still he has been promoted as panchayat officer with effect from January 2025. '… (the order) is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and selective especially, when there is no fault on the part of the petitioner towards the delay for consideration of his promotion as the said process was kept in abeyance only for the reasons that his record was not traceable in the department,' the court said while framing charges under contempt of court Act against Gupta. The court further added that for the past 13 years, the department has not been able to fix the responsibility of any of the officials about the non-availability of the petitioner's service record and still he has not been given benefit with effect from when he was eligible.
