JUDGMENT
Devinder Gupta, ,J.
1. Block-B4, Safdarjung Enclave Resident Association (for short “the Association”) along with petitioners 2 to 9, who are also resident of Krishna Nagar colony having their houses adjacent to plot No.21-22, in Krishna Nagar Colony, on 16.8.1990 filed this the petition. (CW.2623/90) seeking numerous directions, inter alia, to the effect that plot of land adjacent to plots No.21-22, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi and shown as red in the lay out plan and attached to the petition is required to be developed into a park. Mandatory direction was sought against respondent/D.D.A. to develop it as such and also to ensure that no construction activities is carried out on the land adjacent to plots 21-22 and for sealing of any unauthorized construction and taking action in accordance with law for demolition of unauthorized construction and for rejecting of any sanction granted to respondents 4 to 6 for constructing building adjacent to the piece of land ear-marked for park. The prayers made in the said writ petition (C.W.2623/90) reads:-
“a) declare that a plot of land adjacent to plot No. 21-22 Krishna Nagar, New Delhi and shown red in layout plan of DDA, Annexure 1 hereto is required to be developed into a park and that Respondents 1 to 3 are obliged to develop and ensure that the same is developed into – park and is not used or developed for any other purpose by any person;
b) direct Delhi Development Authority (Respondent No. 3) to develop the piece of land adjoining plot No. 21-22 Krishna Nagar, New Delhi, marked red in layout plan of DDA (Annexurc-1) here to into a park in accordance with the layout plan prepared by it for the colony;
c) direct respondent No.3 to ensure that no construction activity is carried on the land adjacent to plot No. 21-22 Krishna Nagar, New Delhi marked red in layout plan of DDA, Annexure-I here to and to stop any unauthorized construction on it and ensure that the said land is developed as a park;
d) direct Respondents 1 and 2 to get the construction on the land adjoining plot No 21-22 Krishna Nagar, New Delhi marked red in layout plan of DDA, Annexurc-1 hereto and also on plot No. 21-22, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi stopped immediately and seal and demolish the construction already constructed on the said lands;
e) direct Respondents No. 1 and 2 to cancel\revoke the sanction granted to respondents 4 to 6 for constructing a building on Plot No. 21-22 Krishna Nagar, New Delhi and the adjoining piece of land earmarked for a park;
f) direct respondent No.1 to demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction raised by respondents 4 to 6 on the land earmarked for park adjoining plot No. 21-22 Krishna Nagar, New Delhi being contrary to the law and the sanctioned plans.
g) direct respondents to ensure that the construction on plot No. 21-22 Krishna Nagar is in accordance with law and the sanctioned plans and that the same shall be used also in accordance with law and the purpose for which the plans have been sanctioned by Respondent No.1.”
2. It appears that after the said writ petition was preferred, owners of plots No.21-22 filed Civil Writ No.2803/90 seeking declaration that M.C.D. cannot seal the property No.21-22, Krishna Nagar and throw out the residents from it. It was alleged that the petitioners submitted plan to the M.C.D. for sanction of building over the said plot after demolition of the existing super structure. Development charges demanded were paid. Building plans were approved and sanctioned. There was already an existing old structure and electric connection functioning for many years. Old construction was demolished and new construction work was started. In the meanwhile, the Association along with other residents, who were not happy, started making various complaints. During the progress of construction certain orders were passed by the M.C.D. purporting to be under Section 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Before receipt of the scaling orders, no notice was served upon the petitioners. Basement of the property was sealed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed appeal. In the meanwhile, Association and residents filed Civil Writ No.2623/90. It was alleged that as the matter was pending in this Court, therefore, the petitioners were also constraint to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions, in the facts and circumstances, that the M.C.D. cannot seal the properties and throw out the residents.
3. After parties exchanged their pleadings, Rule D.B. was issued by the following order passed on 14.8.1993 and making interim directions as regards use of the property reads:-
“There arc two connected writ petitions. C.W.2903/90 is by owner of the property claiming a writ or direction to issue against M.C.D. that it cannot seal the property bearing No.21-22, Krishna Nagar, and throw out the residents, and further prayer is that the DESU be directed to maintain electric supply to the property. The other writ petition No.2623/90 is by residents’ association, there are various prayers in this petition, the principal being that the petitioner in C.W2803/90 Nawal Singh is encroaching upon a public park in the garb of construction on plot bearing No.21-22, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi. Reliefs are, therefore, sought directing the appropriate authorities to take action against the petitioner Nawal Singh and also to stop him from making unauthorized construction against the sanctioned plans. We appointed Local Commissioner by order dated 29 April, 1991. He has since submitted his report. The inspection was done in the presence of all the parties. The report is dated 23 April, 1992. If we sec this report the construction is as per the sanctioned plan though it is said that there arc certain deviations which arc compoundable. As regards second basement, one lower to the basement, it is stated it is unauthorised. Nawal Singh contends that there is no second basement arid digging had to be done for constructing the building and that it has now been filled up. Then the contention by the residents’ association is that property is being put to commercial use when plan was sanctioned for residential purposes only. Nawal Singh has shown us a letter of the D.D.A. that premises can be used for commercial purpose as it is in industrial-cum-shopping complex in the layout plan. This is controverted by the residents’ association which says that it is M.C.D. which is responsible for managing the colony and there is contravention of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act if the property though sanctioned for residential use is put to commercial use. Further the association says even though the land may be privately owned by an individual it has to conform to the land use prescribed. This was in answer to the plea of Nawal Singh that after the layout plan by DDA was published, his land where some part of the park was shown had again vested in him as acquisition proceedings had been set aside.
Nawal Singh filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner on two grounds: (1) that there is no second basement and the hollowness below the basement was on account of chimneys which were in use for a long time for pottery manufacturing business and that hollowness has since been filled up with earth, and (2) property can be put to commercial use. No other party filed objections to the report.
Under Section 347 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act changes of user of the premises is not permissible. If any one does, it entails penalty. Mr.Arun Mohan, however, said that under section 14 of the Delhi Development Act it is the D.D.A. which has to prescribe the land use and to that extent section 347 aforesaid would not be applicable. The point, thus, raised docs need consideration.
Then we also find that in the writ petition filed by Nawal Singh all through he has said that plans were passed for residential purposes and premises were being used as such for residential purposes. During the course of hearing we were told that all the adjoining houses are residential. In the circumstances, therefore, we issue Rule D.B. and at the same time direct that premises in question shall be used only for residential purposes. Orders dated 28 August, 1990 in C.M.4191/90 in C.W.P.2803/90 are confirmed. C.M.3923/90 in C.W.P.2623/90 is allowed only to the extent that premises in question be used only for residential purposes.”
4. The petitions were still at the hearing stage when C.M.5671/92 was filed by M/s.ELBEE Services Lid. praying that it be ordered to be imp leaded as a writ petitioner and the order dated 14.8.1992 be modified and pending hearing of the writ petition it be allowed to continue its commercial activities. The application stated that it had approached respondent No.5, the holder of Power of Attorney of petitioner No.1 for accommodation for opening its branch in Delhi and had initial negotiations with respondent No.5. On 27.1.1992 respondent No.5 entered into lease agreement with M/s.ELBEE Services Ltd. in respect of ground floor and first floor of the building, being built at 21-22, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi, for a period of three years. The company thereafter renovated and decorated the premises. Further lease was executed on 10.6.1992. It is stated that the company has been carrying on commercial activities as per the agreement dated 24.10.1992. It was on 25.8.1992 that a telegram has handed over to the watch man of the company informing about the orders dated 14.8.1992 passed by this Court. In order to safeguard its interest, an application for impleadment was being made as also for modification of the order.
5. On 10.2.1994 C.M.5671/92 was allowed to the extent of impleadment by the following order:-
“This is an application by M/s. ELBEE Services Limited, who claims to be in possession of the properly in question, for being made as one of the respondents because any order made in this writ petition is likely to affect the interest of this company as well. We allow this application and direct that this applicant be joined as one of the respondents. Amended memo of parties be filed by the petitioner within one week. C.M. stands disposed of.”
6. On 10.2.1994 taking note of the subsequent facts, which had come on record regarding the manner in which the property was being used by M/s.ELBEE Services Ltd., the alleged negotiations, alleged to have taken place between Chiranjeevi Lal Jain, the power of attorney holder of the owners and the Association, it was observed by the Bench hearing the petition that prima facie it appeared that an attempt had been made to interfere with the administration of justice in a public interest litigation, which prima facie amounts to contempt of court. Accordingly, show cause notice was directed to be issued, which was directed to be registered as a separate petition, namely, C.C.P.208/94. The order passed on 10.2.1994 reads:-
“10.2.94 : Present: Court on its own motion.
The facts which have been brought out on record by the intervener/ applicant really are shocking if they are true. They not only give a Very bad name to the administration of justice but also to the well thought of effective method of giving justice in public caused in the shape of public interest litigation.
This writ petition was brought out by Block B-4 Safdarjung Enclave Residents Association (Regd.) and some other petitioners seeking directions of this Court for stopping the illegal and unauthorized construction being made in certain plots located in Krishna Nagar Colony and the matter was being examined by this Court and various orders had been made and the matter was yet to be disposed of on merits. Meanwhile, the application (C.M. 5677\92) was filed on behalf of M\S Elibee Service Limited for intervening in this matter as the said applicant is carrying on some commercial activity in the said building.
7. In the additional affidavit filed by one Sh.A.V.Sathe, who is the Regional Manager of the said company, it was disclosed that the petitioner No.1 Association, through Sh.H.N.Kalra, Hony. General Secretary of the Association, negotiated with Mr.Chiranji Lal Jain, Power of Attorney holder of the joint owner of the property in question and as a result of which Rs.4 lakhs in shape of cheques of Rs.50,000/- each were given in the name of the Society and the Society had agreed to withdraw this writ petition and other complaints made by it to various authorities. It is also averred in this affidavit that on September 27,1990, an emergent meeting of the said Association took place in which a resolution was passed for withdrawing all types of cases filed in all the Courts against all the parties including the owners/occupiers/builders of the property in question. It appears that after this resolution was passed, the payment of the said cheques was stopped.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by one Shri S.S.Batra, who claims to be the President of the petitioner No.1 Association, in which he had tried to explain the acceptance of the said cheques and the passing of the said resolution. According to averment made in this affidavit, the cheques were given as donation to the petitioner No.1 Association and the Managing Committee of the Association was persuaded to pass the aforesaid resolution on being misled by the other party that the building activity was being carried on in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The explanation sought to be given in this affidavit, to us, appears to be not at all satisfactory. From the facts, we find, prima facie, that an attempt has been made to interfere with the administration of justice by this Court in this public interest litigation which, prima facie, amount to contempt of court. The copy of the resolution which has been filed on record shows hat following persons had passed the aforesaid resolution and prima facie appears to be party to this nefarious transaction which prima facie amounts to contempt of Court:-
1. Shri S.S. Batra.
2.Shri M.C. Chawdhry.
3.Shri K.N.Kalra.
4.Shri S.Gogia.
S.Shri K.R.Bhasin.
6.Shri K.P.Duggal.
7.Shri K.K.Sapra.
S.Shri R.C.Mehta.
9.Shri V.Bhagia.
l0.Petitioner No. 1 – Association (through Shri H.N. Kalra, Hony. General Secretary).
A separate file be opened by the office and we take suo moto notice of this offence under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and direct issuance of notices to the aforesaid persons including petitioner No. 1 Association to show cause why they be not punished for committing the gross contempt of this Court. The Contempt matter be listed for further hearing on 15th March, 1994.
Counsel for the petitioner No.1 Association is directed to supply the addresses of the aforesaid contemners within one week so that notices can be served on them.
In view of the notice of contempt issued, we would not like petitioner No.1 Association to remain associated with the main writ petition and would not give any hearing to the said alleged contemner till the contempt matter is over.”
9. Before initiation of the above proceedings “Court on its own Motion for contempt”, another application was moved by the Association on 4.11.1992 for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act for having flouted the order passed on 14.8.1992 in C.M.4191/90 and C.M.3923/90 in C.W.2803/90 and C.W.2623/90 respectively. It was alleged that Mr.Sandeep C.Shah of M/s.ELBEE Services Ltd. and Shri M.S.Maurya, Director of M/s.ELBEE Services Ltd. despite the orders had set up a commercial office in the property in question and were running a business of Courier Services. The said petition is C.C.P.No.310/92.
10. In so far as the proceedings initiated suo moto for contempt, separate affidavits in reply have been filed by each of the contemner. Most them have stated that after filing of the writ petition they had no connection whatsoever with the affairs of the Association and were not parties to the decision/resolution of the Association, stated to have been taken on 27.9.1990, which led to the initiation of the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Others who are parties to the said resolution, in their affidavits have explained the circumstances under which resolution was passed and a decision was taken. The stand of such Members of the Association and that of M/s.ELBEE Services Ltd. and the holder of General Power of Attorney of the owners is same and similar.
11. It is stated by them that after filing of writ petition No.2623/90, the builder who was undertaking construction along with owners has been approaching some Members of the Association and trying to justify the construction as being made in accordance with law. The builder showed the lay out plan of the colony, which according to him, permitted commercial use of plots 21-22, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi. The builder also represented that notwithstanding this he will use the building only for residential purpose. As litigation by the Association in public interest was in progress and none of them had any personal interest and the matter could be amicably resolved out side, some of the Members of the Association were misled by the builder and agreed to pass a resolution for withdrawing the objections. Coming to know that the Association was withdrawing its objections, the builder voluntarily offered and handed over some cheques in donation to the Association stating that he would like to give money for the welfare of the colony for the construction of parks and other amenities. In this back ground resolution was passed on 22.9.1990. Some cheques were also received, which are in the account of the Association for its welfare activities. However, after deliberations with each member and persons, who were likely to be affected, the Association decided to continue and pursue its objections in all forums. Cheques though received on 28.9.1990 were not presented till 25.10.1990. The cheques handed over to the association were in no way connected with or linked to the objections raised by the Association. There was no personal interest or personal gain to any member. Members of the Association never wanted to be vindictive to any person.
12. In C.C.P.310/92 the stand taken by Shri Sandeep C.Shah of M/s.ELBEE Services Ltd. is that after coming to know of the order passed on 14.8.1992, the company discontinued its commercial activities at 21-22, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi. It had no notice of the passing of the order as it was not a party to the petition. Negotiations for taking the premises took place with the General Attorney of the owners.
13. One of the question for consideration in the petition has been about the non-conforming use of the premises 21-22, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. It was brought to our notice that during the pendency of the petition on 1.10.1993, the Delhi Development Authority, in response to the letter from M/s.ELBEE Services Ltd. informed it that premises 21-22, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi are being held declared for commercial purposes as this strip falls in Safdarjung Development Area, as per the lay out plan of the Zone. Accordingly, show cause notice bearing No.21-22/KN/STE/P/92 dated 27.7.1993 was being withdrawn.
14. Needless to add that M/s.ELBEE Services Ltd. were not party to the petition, when order dated 14.8.1992 was passed and it is also not in dispute that after coming to know of the orders passed by this Court and having realized the implication of the orders, an application for impleadment was made along with an application for stay of the said order. It is also stated that commercial use was discontinued forthwith. It is also not disputed that show cause notice, which the Delhi Development Authority had issued was withdrawn through its letter dated 1.10.1993, after examination of the entire position that premises No.21-21 had been declared for commercial purposes.
15. In view of the respective stand taken by the General Attorney of the petitioners/owners as also the Members of the Association in their respective affidavits and on behalf of M/s.ELBEE Services Ltd., we are of the view that notice in C.C.P.208/94 and C.C.P.310/92 deserves to be discharged and no further action is required to be taken in those proceedings.
16. In view of the changed circumstances, which have happened during pendency of the petition no useful purpose will be served by keeping these petitions pending. The only direction, which deserves to be issued in the two writ petitions is that no use other than the permissible use will be made, by any of the parties, or any one else, of premises No.21-22, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and of the adjoining area for which the Association has filed its petition. Ordered accordingly. The writ petitions and C.C.Ps. stand disposed of. Rule and notice discharged. Interim orders vacated. Parties to bear their respective costs.