PUSHPA JHANJI & ANR  Vs PAWAN CHOPRA & ORS

CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 1 of 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 5th January, 2021
+ CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018
PUSHPA JHANJI & ANR ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Advocate

versus

PAWAN CHOPRA & ORS ….Re spondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Jain and Mr. Piyush Jain,
Advocates for respondent No.1
Mr. Aditya Sinha and Ms. Ankita
Panikkar, Advocates for
respondent – Pawan Arora.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENC ING]

JUSTICE ASHA MENON

CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 & CM No. 34793/2018 (for impleadment)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act , 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution
of India on the ground that the respond ents have deliberately and wilfully
violated the order of the court dated 28th July, 2010 passed in Review
Petition No. 14764/2008.
2. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the petition are as
follows: on 3rd November, 2008, a batch of 10 writ petition s including the
one filed by the respondent No.2 herein [W.P.(C) 1444/2005 ], concerning
2021:DHC:12CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 2 of 10
the affairs of Shivaji Co -operative Group Housing Society , were disposed
of vide a common judg ment. These writ petitions came to be filed as
disputes arose between some original members of the society who had
been expelled by the Managing Committee but whose expulsion had been
set aside by the Financial Commissioner and those who had been
inducted as fresh members in their stead. As a result of the restoration of
members hip and the induction of new members, the number of flats fell
short of the number of the members. The question before the court was
whose claim was to get precedence over the others.
3. After noticing the orders passed in previous litigation between the
memb ers of the society, and after considering the claims of the restored
members and the new members, the court on 3rd November, 2008 issued
the following directions:
“(a) The petitioners in WP(C) No. 2338 -53/2005 and others
namely, 22 persons who were purport edly inducted on
11.04.1999 , shall hand over the possession of the flats to the
Administrator within four months from today.

(b) These flats shall be allotted to those 22 members who
were expelled, subject to the condition that they have paid
entire cons ideration and no further amount is due from
them. For this purpose, draw of lots in respect of these 22
flats for the said 22 members shall be held by the
Administrator. Thereafter, possession shall be handed over
to these members.

(c) In order to accommo date the petitioners and other
similarly situated persons (22 in number), the newly
inducted members, we issue the following directions: –
2021:DHC:12CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 3 of 10
(ci) Due to the increase in the FAR there is an increase in
the membership from 120 to 138. Therefore, 18 persons can
be accommodated by enrolment thereof as new members out
of 22 persons. By draw of lot s 18 out of these 22 persons
shall be selected and the said list shall be forwarded by the
society to Registrar, who shall approve their membership.
Remaining four persons shall be given refund of the amount
paid by them. We are not granting any interest on this
amount as during all this period they enjoyed use and
occupation of the flats.

(cii) The Administrator shall submit plans for construction
of additional flats to M CD/DDA within two weeks from
today. These shall be approved within six weeks of their
submission, subject to fulfil lment of other formalities.
Thereafter, the society shall start construction of the new
flats and on completion of those flats, possession th ereof
shall be handed over to the newly recruited members.

(ciii) These 18 persons who were inducted as members on
11.4.1999 had paid the entire consideration in respect of
these flats by the end of year 2000 when the draw of lots
was held on 31.12.2000. Therefore, they would only pay the
additional cost incurred on the construction of these flats
meaning thereby from the total construction cost of the new
flats, the amount already paid by them shall be adjusted and
the balance amount shall be shared by th ese 18 persons in
equal proportion
or in the alternative
In case these 18 persons are not agreeable to the new
constructions at their cost in the manner provided above, it
would be open to them to seek refund of the amount paid by
them. These persons shall exercise their option in this behalf
2021:DHC:12CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 4 of 10
within two weeks from today to enable the Administrator to
proceed further in the matter accordingly. ”

4. Aggrieved by this order , some of the parties , who were required to
vacate the flats, approached the S upreme Court by filing Special Leave
Petitions Nos .12168 -12170/2011 which were, however, dismissed on 3rd
May, 2018 with the following observations:
“We are satisfied that the High Court has passed an
equitable order in favour of the petitioners in spite o f their
being inducted as members, subsequently certain directions
had been issued for construction of flats and thereafter to
hand over to them.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, complete
justice has been done by the High Court ”.
xxx xxx xxx
“Apart from that, we are constrained to observe that
order of the High Court is just and equitable the petitioner
has dragged this matter unnecessarily for the last seven
years.”

5. It may be noted that the sixteen members , who were inducted after
the expu lsion of the original members and had filed the writ petitions ,
subsequently filed Review Petition No.14764/2008. Three persons who
had not approached the court earlier also chos e to file Review Petitions,
No.15/2009 (Smt. G. Alavadi) & No.17/2009 (jointly by two persons) .
Additionally, one person filed a separate Writ Petition No.11049/2009.
All these were disposed of by the court vide a common judgment dated
28th July, 2010. It is the violation of this judgment that is alleged in the
present Contempt Peti tion.
2021:DHC:12CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 5 of 10
6. The court dealing with the Review Petitions observed that “ there is
hardly any challenge to the findings ” given in the judgment dated 3rd
November, 2008 that “ removal/expulsion of respondents from their
membership was illegal and the enrolment of 23 persons in their place
was improper or illegal ”, and the grievance of the review petitioners
related to the directions given to them to hand over the possession of flats
to the Administrator. Their prayer was that all members falling in either
category sho uld be accommodated by fixing a priority or merit for
allotment of the flats.
7. It bears notice that the order dated 28th July, 2010 was a consent
order and was based on discussions in which most of the parties had
participated and were present in the court when such discussions had
taken place. Therefore, there could be no occasion for any confusion in
the minds of any of the parties as to what they were required to do. Yet,
surprisingly, the present Contempt Petition has been filed, based on
interpretations of the judgment dated 28th July, 2010.
8. The two petitioners herein claim that the respondents had evicted
them by sealing their flats contrary to the directions contained in the
judgment in the Review Petition filed by them and this had been done to
wreak vengeance upon them by adopting a pick and choose policy.
According to the petitioners, the respondents were bound in law to carry
out the instructions cont ained in the Para 9 Clauses (3) to (7) of the
judgment dated 28th July, 2010, which had to be follow ed in sequence and
which , according to them , was that: first membership was to be increased
from 120 to 138; then directions were to be given for construction of
flats; then a list of priority was to be prepared; whereafter, persons whose
2021:DHC:12CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 6 of 10
names were mentio ned in para number 9 (5) were to be evicted; and as
per priority list , the entitled persons were to be accommodated in 12 flats
which were to be got vacated as per Para 9 (5) and (6); thereafter, a draw
of lots was to be conducted as per Para 9 (7); and if the petitioners were
among the 5 drawn from amongst 12 persons , only then could the
petitioners been evicted. According to the petitioners , instead of
following this sequence , the respondents straightaway sealed their flats in
a totally illegal manner.
9. The further grievance of the petitioners is that there is no order
passed by any competent authority for the execution of the directions
contained in the judgment dated 28th July, 2010 and merely on the basis
of a notice , the respondents had sealed the hou ses of the petitioners which
was illegal and unlawful.
10. Thus, the petitioners prayed that this court initiate contempt
proceedings against the respondents No.1 to 4 and punish them as per
law; quash the notice dated 23rd July, 2018; issue directions to the
respondents to de -seal the properties bearing numbers B -6/8, Shivaji
Appt., Plot No. 4/1, Sector 14, Rohini, Delhi -110085 and B-3/6, Shivaji
Appt., Plot No. 4/1, Sector 14, Rohini, Delhi -110085 and issue directions
to the respondents to follow the order da ted 28th July, 2010 in R.P. No.
14764/2008 in letter and spirit.
11. The respondent No.1 has filed a Status Report in which it was
submitted that notices dated 19th May, 2018 had been served by him to
the illegal/non -members including the petitioners for vacat ion of the flats.
These notices were challenged by them in the W.P.(C) Nos.6053/2018,
6355/2018 and 7057/2018. These writ petitions were dismissed by the
2021:DHC:12CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 7 of 10
Division Bench of this court by the common order dated 10th July, 2018.
The SLPs preferred against the said order were also dismissed by the
Supreme Court vide order dated 7th September , 2018. It was also
submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were a group
of persons who have consistently prevented the original members from
reaping the benefit of orders that had been issued in their favour, by
stalling allocation of the flats to them and even the Supreme Court
criticized their conduct in stymieing the execution of the just and
reasonable orders of this court which did complete justice a mongst the
parties. This was another attempt to thwart the execution of the orders of
the court.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners , Sh.Manish
Kaushik and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Administrator,
Sh.S.K.Jain and the coun sel appearing for respondents in the other cases.
Arguments and counter arguments also centered on the roles of the
Administrator and the Registrar of Societies, though not a party in this
petition, but appearing in other matters relating to the Shivaji Co –
operative Group Housing Society. However, it was made clear to all
concerned that the issues relating to other litigation were not germane to
the present petition and so would not be considered.
13. As noticed hereinabove , the order dated 28th July, 2010 was a
consent order. There is no scope for interpreting the order as sought for
by the petitioners. In any case, a contempt petition cannot be filed for
seeking an interpretation of a court order. Such luxury is not available in
law. The petitioners had to sho w in clear terms how contempt had
occurred and what part /s of the directions ha s/have not been complied
2021:DHC:12CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 8 of 10
with. They seem to be harping only on following a sequence, which does
not appear from the record. Directions were issued to ensure that flats
were made readily available for allotment to the true members. It does not
prescribe that new construction alone would lead to the vacation of the
flats by the non -members. The r espondent No. 1 was obligated to comply
with the directions issued by this court on 2 8th July, 2010 and subsequent
orders and he has done so by ensuring that flats become available for
allocation to the real members.
14. The petitioners also admit that they have been issued notices. So it
is not as if, the sealing of the flats took place without adherence to
principles of natural justice. In fact, these notices were challenged in the
writ petitions aforementioned, which were dismissed by a Division Bench
of this court vide order dated 10th July, 2018. Anguished by the manner in
which the petition ers before it have ensured that members do not get their
flats, the court described these writ petitions challenging the notices as “ a
deliberate conceited attempt by the petitioners to start another round of
litigation immediately after and on dismissal ” of their Special Leave to
Appeal on 3rd May, 2018.
15. In its order dated 10th July, 2018 , the Division Bench once again
traced the history of the lis between the parties and the orders passed at
various stages, particularly the order dated 3rd November , 2008 and the
order dated 28th July, 2010 which was a consent order. It also noted that
soon thereafter another set of applications were filed before the Division
Bench which were dismissed vide order dated 21st January , 2011. It also
recorded that an applicatio n bearing CM No.20419/2010 was moved
before the court by an applicant seeking permission to stay in the existing
2021:DHC:12CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 9 of 10
flat till new flats were constructed. He also claimed that the order dated
28th July, 2010 was not a consent order. Both, the plea as well as t he
claim, were rejected and the application was dismissed. In other words,
the case of the present petitioners that they could not be evicted from the
flats in question till after the new flats were constructed, has no legs to
stand.
16. It also observed that “it was lucid and clear” that the petitioners
before it, whose membership enrolment were held illegal and contrary to
law, could have only limited right s as flow in terms of the orders dated 3rd
November, 2008 and 28th July, 2010 and could claim no further or
additional right including that they were valid members of the Society as
the Supreme Court had affirmed these two orders. After rejecting all
contentions raised by the petitioners and observing that those writ
petitions were “ an attempt to stall imple mentation of the orders passed in
2008 -2010 ” despite rejection by the Supreme Court of their SLPs, the
court directed that it was the duty of the administrator to ensure
compliance of the orders passed by the High Court dated 3rd November ,
2008 as modified vide order dated 28th July, 2010 and directed that if the
eviction notices were not complied with within a period of 21 days ,
coercive action would have to be taken as per law. It noted that the
charges as directed in the order dated 28th July, 2010 had n ot been paid.
We may note that these have not been paid till now. The writ petitions
were then dismissed.
17. The present contempt petition is another desperate attempt to
prevent the members of the society from getting their flats. The plea of a
sequential c ompliance is frivolous. There is no scope for interpreting a
2021:DHC:12CONT.CAS(C) 645/2018 Page 10 of 10
consent order which is crystal clear to everyone except apparently the
petitioners. When their writ petitions against the notices were dismissed
on 10th July, 2018 and they were directed by a Div ision Bench of this
court to vacate the premises within 21 days of the order, they have come
up with this petition on 2 3rd August , 2018 alleging contempt of the very
same orders that the Administrator was directed to comply with. As the
petitioners failed to comply with the directions, the respondents ,
particularly the respondent No.1 as Administrator, were fully justified in
taking coercive action to seal the flats of the petitioners, rather, action for
repossession ought to have been taken by them.
18. The pr esent Contempt petition is completely devoid of bonafides.
The repeated attempts by the petitioners to delay obeying the directions
of the court appear to be contumacious. But nothing more is being said at
this juncture, in the belief that obedience will f ollow.
19. The petition deserves to be and is dismissed.

(ASHA MENON )
JUDGE
JANUARY 05, 2021
manjeet
2021:DHC:12