Facts
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the Delhi High Court’s order dated 21 August 2023 passed in CONT.CAS(C) 961/2022.
Source reference: p.1, para.1The alleged disobedience concerned obstruction and disturbance by respondent nos. 1–12 in the day-to-day functioning of Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha.
Source reference: p.1, para.2The respondents denied having caused any hindrance or disturbance to the Gurudwara’s operations.
Source reference: p.3, paras.3–4The petitioner also relied on photographs showing that the Gurudwara’s board was lying on the floor and that the Darbar Sahib required repair and renovation, including due to peeling paint and damage to the ceiling.
Source reference: p.4, paras.5–8; p.6–7, paras.9–10Issues
1. Whether respondent nos. 1–12 were obstructing or interfering with the day-to-day functioning of the Gurudwara in violation of the earlier order dated 21 August 2023?
Source reference: p.1, para.1; p.3, paras.2–42. Whether the petitioner could install the Gurudwara’s board and undertake repair or renovation work without obstruction from the respondents?
Source reference: p.4, paras.5–7; p.6–7, paras.8–113. Whether directions should be issued to the police to assist in restoring normalcy if obstruction or interference continued?
Source reference: p.7, paras.12–13Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that parties bound by a judicial undertaking or direction must comply with it and must not obstruct the conduct of the activities protected by the Court’s order.
Source reference: p.3, para.4The Court further proceeded on the principle that routine repair or renovation of the Gurudwara, without altering its structure, did not require permission from any statutory authority.
Source reference: p.6–7, paras.9–11It also directed that police assistance could be availed of to maintain normalcy and order where obstruction or interference affected the Gurudwara’s functioning.
Source reference: p.7, paras.12–13Reasoning
Although respondent nos. 1–12 denied causing interference, the Court recorded their statement and held them bound by it. Consequently, they were directed not to obstruct or disturb the Gurudwara’s day-to-day functioning in any manner.
Source reference: p.3, para.4On examining the photographs, the Court found visible deterioration of the Gurudwara’s premises, including peeling paint and ceiling damage.
Source reference: p.6–7, paras.9–10It therefore permitted the petitioner to install the board and undertake repairs or renovation, subject to the limitation that the structure of the Gurudwara could not be changed.
Source reference: p.4, paras.5–7; p.6–7, para.11To address any continuing interference, the Court authorised the petitioner’s representative to contact the designated Beat Officer, who was directed to ensure restoration of normalcy and order.
Source reference: p.7, paras.12–13Holding
The Court directed respondent nos. 1–12 not to obstruct or interfere with the Gurudwara’s day-to-day functioning.
The petitioner was permitted to install the Gurudwara’s board and carry out repair or renovation work without altering the building’s structure, and the respondents were directed not to obstruct such work.
Source reference: p.4, paras.5–7; p.6–7, para.11In the event of interference, the petitioner’s authorised representative could contact the specified Beat Officer, who was directed to restore normalcy and order.
Source reference: p.7, paras.12–13The contempt petition and all pending applications were disposed of, and the next date of hearing was cancelled.
Source reference: p.7, paras.14–15Original Court PDF
Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha(Regd) Through Its General Secretary Ranjeet SinghvsShailender Singh & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
