Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 1547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The facts that will be necessary to be noticed are as follows: The Respondent No. 1 herein, as the writ Petitioner, instituted a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court (C.W.P. No. 11684 of 2011) raising a grievance with regard to the Final Development Plan 2025-AD for Gurgaon- Manesar Urban Complex published vide Notification No. CCP (NCR)/FDP(G)/2011/1386 dated 24.05.2011. Specifically, it was contended that Sectors 63-A and Sector 67-A have been carved out in the Development Plan contrary to the Zoning Regulations which are required to be followed. The Final Development Plan, it may be noticed, is prepared under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itiated on the basis that the grant of the licence dated 28.12.2011 by the Appellant is in violation of the order of the Court dated 18.08.2011. 6 . The Appellant had filed his response in the contempt proceeding contending that no allotment was made by him or by any other authority so as to constitute violation of the order of the High Court dated 18.08.2011. The Appellant, in his reply, further stated that in every residential sector, a maximum of 20% of the net planned area was earmarked for group housing and 3.5% for commercial purposes whereas for plotted residential colonies there was no restriction except the requirement of a minimum area of 100 acres. It was also stated that while the applications for group housing and commercial .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... above, came to the conclusion that its order dated 18.08.2011 has to be understood to have imposed a comprehensive embargo on issuance of all kinds of licences and, therefore, the grant of licence dated 28.12.2011, though for a plotted housing colony, amounted to violation of the order dated 18.08.2011. Accordingly, the High Court held the Appellant guilty of commission of contempt and passed orders for his personal appearance for hearing on the quantum of punishment. 8 . We have heard Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General for India, appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 3. None has appeared on behalf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted by the High Court. Lastly, the learned Attorney General, by drawing the Court's attention to the counter affidavit filed before this Court by the second Respondent, has submitted that the writ petition itself had been dismissed by the High Court on 30.10.2012 holding that the validity of the development plan published by the Government in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Statute is not open to challenge by means of a Public Interest Litigation. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid order of the High Court has attained finality in law. 10. The terms of the order of the High Court dated 18.08.2011; the averments/statements made in the contempt petition and the reply thereto on behalf of the Appellant as well as th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t by understanding the order dated 18.08.2011 to mean status quo or a restraint in respect of grant of licences under the Haryana Act of 1975. 11. In an earlier part of the present order, we have noticed the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the Appellant before the High Court in the event his explanations were to be found unacceptable. The explanation to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, makes it clear that an apology tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional so long it is made bona fide. In his reply, the Appellant, after offering his explanations, had tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology in the event the explanations did not comme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates