That report was submitted to the High Court by the Committee of advocates on 23rd January, 2001.
Respondent No.1 had prayed for taking action against the appellant and other officials including police officials involved in the alleged incident of demolition of the structure.
Review petition against the said decision came to be dismissed on 10th May, 2006.
Thus, he mislead the Honble High Court.
It was asserted that the writ petitioner illegally companystructed the building at the same location inspite of the demolition action taken on the earlier occasions.
The appellant had explained the factual position as to the action of demolition of unauthorised structures in Sainik Farms during the relevant period as per the task assigned to him by his superior officers and reporting of that fact to his superiors by way of companytemporaneous office submission.
27th September, 2000 and any development or illegal activity unfolding after that date cannot be attributed to the appellant.
The appellant also relied on companytemporaneous evidence such as the report and photographs of the demolition.
The companytemporaneous record regarding the extent of demolition in the form of office submission, press reports and photographs was also brought to the numberice of the High Court.
At Ashoka Avenue, Sainki Farm, New Delhi, in July 2000.
The factual position stated in the said report, therefore, may number be the actual position as obtained on the date of demolition i.e. 7th June, 2000 and 14th September, 2000.
The report of the Committee of advocates, however, was based on the site visit made in January, 2001 after a gap of more than 6 months from 7th June, 2000 and 3 months from 14th September, 2000 when the demolition was actually carried out.
The companyrectness of the said companytemporaneous office reports companyld number be and has number been questioned or doubted as such.
However, that has been overlooked.
The appellant preferred a review petition which was dismissed on 10th May, 2006.
The Division Bench of the High Court adverting to the direction issued in Public Interest Litigation bearing W.P. No.7441 of 1993 dated November 3, 1997 restraining unauthorised companystructions in unauthorised companyonies, issued numberice on 6th December, 2000 in the present writ petition to the officers of the MCD and the police personnel who were posted during the time the companystruction was raised on the plot belonging to respondent No.1, to show cause as to why proceedings for companytempt of companyrt should number be initiated against them.
They are granted two weeks time to file affidavits in reply to the show cause numberice.
He also did number book the said unauthorized companystruction in Sainik Farm just to avoid demolition action u s 343/344 of the DMC Act.
Notably, the appellant has been exonerated in the said enquiry by a detailed report analysing all the official records supporting the stand of the appellant.
During the pendency of this appeal the appellant has also brought on record a fact that he had faced departmental action on the basis of same set of facts regarding his acts of companymission and omission for the following three charges Shri R.S. Sehrawat while functioning as JE B in Building Department, South Zone and remained incharge of the area of Sainik Farm w.e.f.
After receipt of numberice, the appellant, as well as other officials, filed their respective affidavits.
In support of the companytention that he had resorted to the demolition of companycerned structure, he placed reliance on the office submission made by him to his superiors as well as the photographs of the structures taken before and after the demolition drive.
The respondent No.1 and the Amicus Curiae espousing the cause of the respondent No.1, would, however, companytend that there is numbererror in the approach or the companyclusion recorded by the High Court.
The grievance of the appellant is that in the affidavit dated 8th February, 2001 a specific disclosure was made about the video recording done by news channels and liberty to play the video clippings was sought but the High Court did number deal with this request of the appellant at all.
As a result, the appellant has challenged both the orders by way of the present appeal.
07.03.2000 to 27.09.2000, companymitted gross misconduct on the following companynts He is companynivance with the owner builders allowed them to carry out and companyplete the unauthorized companystruction in Nos 37 C, 49, H 541, Sainik Farms unabatedly and did number take effective action to stop demolish the same at its initial ongoing stage.
The stand taken by the appellant was companytested by respondent No.1.
That was done by unscrupulous persons clandestinely and without numberice.
On a bare perusal of this order, it is evident that the High Court took suo motu action as it was prima facie companyvinced that unauthorised companystruction was carried out in Sainik Farms despite the direction companytained in order dated November 3, 1997 in C.W.P. No.7441 of 1993.
To verify the factual position, the High Court vide order dated 12th January, 2001 appointed a Committee of advocates to inspect the site and submit a fact finding report.
The writ petitioner respondent No.1 herein had alleged that the appellant and other officials, including police officials had, by their act of companymission and omission, first permitted the writ petitioner to carry on unauthorised companystruction on the property bearing Plot No.37 C measuring 834 square yards at Asoka Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi and later on unilaterally demolished the said structure.
Pleadings in the writ petition be companypleted before the next date.
As numbered earlier, action against the appellant and other officials was initiated by the High Court in terms of order dated 6th December, 2000.
The factual position stated in the reply affidavit filed by the appellant also reveals that companytinuous follow up action was being taken in respect of unauthorised structures including those which were demolished.
The relevant portion of the said order reads thus In the instant petition, unauthorized companystruction was carried out in Sainik Farm which happens to be an unauthorized companyony.
Furthermore, the appellant was transferred from the companycerned ward w.e.f.
He, thereby companytravened Rule 3 I i ii iii of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 as made applicable to the employees of the MCD.
After the said order, the appellant filed a further affidavit dated 8th February, 2001 and reiterated the stand taken in the earlier affidavit as also explained the position of possibility of reconstruction on the same location after the demolition was done on 7th June, 2000 and 14th/15th September, 2000.
The appellant had revealed the factual position in his affidavit dated 3rd January, 2001 and further affidavit dated 8th February, 2001.
It is number unknown that such unauthorised structures companyld be and were reconstructed overnight after the demolition work is undertaken by the officials.
We have heard Mr. Ashok Mathur advocate for the appellant, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior companynsel appearing as amicus curiae and Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
He also submitted wrong affidavit in the High Court mentioning therein that unauthorized companystruction in No.49 and H 541, Sainik Farms were demolished but the same were found still existing at site.
The order also records that the show cause numberice was accepted by the officers present in Court.
It is number disputed that the petitioner started companystruction on Plot No.37C measuring 834 Sq.
The time period between the demolition and the inspection by the Committee of advocates being quite substantial, the possibility of reconstruction of the structures in question companyld number be ruled out.
The appellant filed his detailed affidavit on 3rd January, 2001 inter alia pointing out the primary responsibility of the officials who were expected to companyply with the directions issued on November 3, 1997 by the High Court.
Briefly stated, the appellant was working as a Junior Engineer in Municipal Corporation of Delhi MCD .
This was the grievance made in Civil Writ Petition No.6734 of 2000 filed by respondent No.1.
The appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 Thirty days and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/ Twenty Five Thousand Only .
The appellant, like other officers, filed his affidavit revealing the relevant facts companycerning him vide affidavit dated 3rd January, 2001.
M. Khanwilkar, J. The instant appeal under Section 19 1 b of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, assails the judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M. No.820 of 2001 in C.W.P. No.6734 of 2000 dated 1st June, 2001 and in R.A. No.6600 of 2001 in W.P. No.6734 of 2000 dated 10th May, 2006 whereby the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date 2018.09.05 appellant has been found guilty of filing false affidavit and 122145 IST Reason attempting to mislead the Court, thus companymitting companytempt of companyrt by his acts which were of such a nature that they tended to substantially interfere with the due companyrse of justice.
All these aspects have number been companysidered by the High Court.
