M/S. Glauser International vs Capital Development Authority And Other
This contempt petition arose from the alleged non-compliance with an Islamabad High Court order dated 17.6.2008 passed in an Intra-Court Appeal, which directed the Capital Development Authority (CDA) to examine and decide the petitioner's claim within two weeks, subject to the condition that it had not already been decided. The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-implementation, which was twice dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's lack of diligence and failure to appear. The petitioner subsequently sought restoration of the petition and, concurrently, permission to withdraw it with liberty to file a fresh one. The core legal question was whether a case for contempt of court was made out and whether repeated petitions on the same subject matter could be entertained. The Court held that the contempt petition lacked merit as there was no proof of non-compliance or pending formal applications on record, the restoration application lacked sufficient grounds, and a litigant cannot be permitted to file successive petitions for the same relief. The petition and accompanying civil miscellaneous applications were consequently dismissed.
- Whether a contempt petition can be entertained when the petitioner fails to establish any deliberate non-compliance with the court order?
- Can a litigant be permitted to withdraw a contempt petition with permission to file a fresh one on the same subject matter?
- Whether an application for restoration of a dismissed petition can be allowed without sufficient cause or supporting medical evidence?
- Contempt of Courts Act
ORDER MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J. - Facts, in precise, relevant for the disposal of this contempt petition are that the present petitioner filed a writ petition against the respondent CDA which was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge in Chambers of this Court vide order dated 30.5.2008. An Intra-Court Appeal bearing No. 39/2008 assailing dismissal in limine was disposed of on 17.6.2008. The order dated 17.6.2008 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "The learned counsel for the appellant states that he will be satisfied if the CDA is directed to take decision on the claim filed by the appellant shall be examined'! By the CDA and the decision thereon shall be taken within two weeks. This order is subject to condition i. e the claim has already not been decided by the CDA. The Intra-Court Appeal stands disposed."
2. The petitioner, as per his stance, approached the respondent-time and again with the request to finalize his claim within the stipulated period of two weeks but failed to get any relief and ultimately filed the captioned contempt petition, which was initially taken up on 11.11.2008 and on the next date i.e. 12.1.2009. It was dismissed for non- prosecution. It is important to note that on both the dates i. e.
11.11.2008 and 12.1.2009, nobody did turn up to prosecute this contempt petition. On 12.2.2009 on an application (C.M. No. 476/2009) this contempt petition was restored to its original number and notice was issued to CDA for 4.3.2009, but it was taken up on 29.4.2009, when on the request of learned counsel for CDA, it was adjourned to 18.5.2009. On the said date, office was directed to issue fresh notice to the respondent. On the date i.e. 10.6.2009, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls and again this contempt petition was dismissed for non- prosecution.
3. The petitioner, once again, moved Application No. 3435/2009 for restoration which is still sub judice and thereafter the petitioner through the counsel (in attendance) moved Civil Miscellaneous (1178/2012) seeking permission to withdraw the criminal original and to file fresh one.
4. It is important to note that the contempt petition has not yet been restored and the petitioner brought another Civil Miscellaneous for its withdrawal.
5. It is stance of the learned counsel that the previous counsel due to his ailing health conditions could not attend the Court on several occasions thus the Criminal Original Application was dismissed in default and that now the petitioner wants permission to withdraw the Criminal Original with permission to file a fresh application.
6. Since both the applications i.e. For restoration and for permission to withdraw the petition are interconnected, the petitions being old one pertaining to year 2008 are being taken up together.
7. The petitioner prays for a punitive action against the respondents for defying the orders of this Court dated 17.6.2008 (reproduced herein above) whereby respondents were directed to examine the claim of the petitioner and to take decision thereon within two weeks. The order was, in fact, with a stipulated period the claim of the petitioner be decided by the CDA.
8. In order to ascertain as to whether any action is warranted against the respondents, we have perused the contempt petition and failed to find any reasonable ground which can be made basis for initiation of proceedings, It is the grievance of the petitioner that he approached the respondents time and again for complying with the order of this Court but there is no such application on record. Even he failed to mention in his petition that his claim is not in contravention of the stipulation that it was not decided earlier, so it is manifest that this contempt petition lacks merits.
9. The history of this case indicates that the petitioner had not been diligent about the progress of the case, It was dismissed twice first on 12.1.2009 and then on 10.6.2009 and for its restoration the petitioner preferred an application after more than 30 days on the ground of sickness of earlier counsel with no details or medical certificate, thus the application for restoration has also no force.
10. Adverting to the last point i.e. Withdrawal with permission to file fresh one, guidance may be solicited from case "Syed Masood Alam Rizvi and others Vs. Dr. Muhammad Saeed (2009 SCM R 477) wherein it was held that a litigant cannot be allowed to file respective petitions on the same subject-matter and on the same relief.
11. Even otherwise, matter of contempt, being between the Court and the contemnor, it is upto the Court either to take any appropriate action against the alleged contemnor or to drop the matter.
12. The essence of above discussion is that it is not a matter, even on merits, where any action is called for in exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act. We, therefore, dismiss this contempt petition alongwith both CMs, mentioned above, with no orders as to costs.