Manmohan - (1.) CM No. 10421/2020 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM No. 10423/2020 (additional documents) Keeping in view the averments in the application, the same is allowed and additional documents are taken on record. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Cont. App.(C) 3/2020 & CM Appl. 10422/2020 (for stay), 10424/2020 (for directions) 1. The present appeal has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.
(2.) It is pertinent to mention that present contempt appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 challenging the order dated 15th April, 2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby not only the contempt petition of the appellant being Cont. Cas. (C) 244/2020 was dismissed but a costs of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:- '6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no substance, whatsoever, in the contempt petition. It cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that there has been any contemptuous or wilful disobedience, or otherwise, of the order, dated 8th April, 2020, passed by this Court in WP (C) 2954/2020 already extracted hereinabove. Significantly, the said order had been passed before the issuance of the containment order, dated 10th April, 2020, by the GNCTD. A reading of the containment order dated 10th April, 2020, makes it apparent that, in view of spread of the n-COVID-2019 epidemic in the GNCTD area, as well as the fact that, even till the date of issuance of the said order, at least three patients had died from the said disease in Chandni Mahal, it had been consciously decided to strictly delimit the Chandni Mahal area as a containment area. 7. It is not as though the authorities are oblivious to the requirement of essential commodities reaching persons residing, or located, within the containment area. In fact, a reading of the aforesaid order dated 10th April, 2020 discloses that the SDM, Kotwali and the SHO, P.S. Chandni Mahal have specifically been directed to ensure door-to-door supply of essential commodities in the said area in coordination with market associations or any other appropriate mechanism for uninterrupted supply of ration and essential commodities. Mr. Ansari seeks to submit that his client should also be extended the benefit of afore-extracted para 4 of the containment order dated 10th April, 2020. Apart from the fact that this plea is foreign to the present contempt proceedings, even on merits, it cannot, quite obviously, be countenanced. It is obvious that this plea is completely devoid of substance. Keeping in view the overarching consideration of public interest, the GNCTD has directed the SDM, Kotwali and the SHO, P.S. Chandni Mahal to ensure supply of essential commodities in the Chandni Mahal containment area, in coordination with the market associations or any other appropriate mechanism. The 'appropriateness' of the 'mechanism' has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the concerned authorities, who are in seisin of the issue. It is not for the petitioner to treat itself as an 'appropriate mechanism' for supply of essential commodities. Had the petitioner been serious about its intentions, it was always open to the petitioner to contact the SDM, Kotwali and the SHO, P.S. Chandni Mahal in this regard. It does not appear that any such attempt was made. 8. In any event, in strictly enforcing the order dated 10th April, 2020 in the Chandni Mahal area, it is clear that there has been no disobedience of the order dated 8th April, 2020 passed by this Court in WP(C) 2954/2020. Accordingly, there is no substance, whatsoever, in this contempt petition. 9. Before parting with this order, I deem it appropriate to note that in the present situation of crisis, following the n-COVID-2019 pandemic with which, indeed, the whole world is concerned, the enforcement of isolation measures, by the Government, is aimed at ensuring, as far as possible, limited exposure, of the country and its denizens, to the n-COVID-2019 virus. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact, apparent at ground level, that the Central, as well as the State Governments - including the GNCTD - are straining every sinew, in achieving this aim and are committed to making no compromises, whatsoever, on that score. We have, as it is, naysayers aplenty, and it is the duty of courts to step in and ensure that the efforts, of the executive administration, to somehow tide over the crisis, are not subjected to roadblocks in the form of abortive and ill-conceived litigative exercises. This court, were it to at all entertain the present contempt petition would, in my view, be acting in eminent opposition to public interest. 10. I had queried, of Mr. Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as to whether his client was seriously pursuing this contempt petition. He responded in the affirmative. 11. In view of the above, this contempt petition is dismissed, with costs which are, for the present, being fixed, on a token basis, at Rs.10,000/-. Costs are required to be deposited by the petitioner, by way of a crossed cheque favouring 'PM Cares', within a period of 2 weeks after the lifting of lockdown by the Government.'
(3.) Md. Azam Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the respondents had given an undertaking dated 8th April, 2020 to the writ court that the requisite curfew passes had already been issued to the Trustees and volunteers of the appellant-Trust and as those passes were valid for entire Delhi till 14th April, 2020, they would be extended, if required. The order dated 8th April, 2020 is reproduced hereinbelow:- '1. The petitioner claims to be a registered charitable trust and has filed the present petition seeking appropriate passes for movement during the lockdown period for supplying various essential items like ration, food, medicines, etc. to the persons in need. 2. The petition indicates that the trustees of the petitioner trust had sought passes for four trustees and nine volunteers. Their request also included passes for three vehicles. 3. Mr. Dewan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states, on instructions, that the requisite passes have already been issued to the trustees and volunteers as mentioned by the petitioner. He states that these passes are for the entire Delhi and are valid till 14.04.2020. He further states that they would be extended, if required. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to join the proceedings. However, in view of the statement made by Mr. Dewan, this Court considers if apposite to dispose of this petition by directing that the respondents be bound down to the same. 5. No further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The same is disposed of.' ;