Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 731 - SC - Indian LawsContempt proceeding - Requisition for Acquisition of land - declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Grant sanction of plans for construction of buildings - Society deposited the entire amount of compensation - clerical or typographical error has crept in the judgment of the High Court - HELD THAT:- Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) is a statutory authority. It has been created by a statute. It was responsible for planned development of the city. For the said purpose, it was under a statutory obligation to grant sanction of plans for construction of buildings. If somebody has made constructions without obtaining any sanction, he must face the consequences therefor. Parameters of the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 are well-settled. While dealing with such an application, the court is concerned primarily with : (i) whether the order passed by it has attained finality or not; (ii)whether the same is complied with or not. While exercising the said jurisdiction this court does not intend to reopen the issues which could have been raised in the original proceeding nor shall it embark upon other questions including the plea of equities which could fall for consideration only in the original proceedings. The court is not concerned with as to whether the original order was right or wrong. The court must not take a different view or traverse beyond the same. It cannot ordinarily give an additional direction or delete a direction issued. In short, it will not do anything which would amount to exercise of its review jurisdiction. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 129 of the Constitution of India must strive to give effect to the directions issued by this Court. When the claim of the parties had been adjudicated upon and has attained finality, it is not open for any party to go behind the said orders and seek to take away and/ or truncate the effect thereof. T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan[1995 (8) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT]. So far as submission of Mr. Srivastava that a clerical or typographical error has crept in the judgment of the Patna High Court is concerned, we are of the opinion that it is not for this court to direct any correction therein. The functions of the PRDA are now being carried out by Patna Municipal Corporation. The statutory authority, thus, keeping in view the purport and object for which it has been created, in our opinion, must take appropriate action in accordance with law. As indicated, PRDA, the predecessor of Patna Municipal Corporation has given assurance before this Court. We hope it shall implement the same as expeditiously as possible. The petition is disposed of accordingly with the directions and observations.
|