- (1.) At one stage parties to this case, both of them, gave the Court to understand that the issues were resolved by an agreement and compromise recorded and when the Court proceeded to consign the petition to the record as there is nothing left to decide with issues settled and compromised, the contesting respondent the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, retracted from the agreement. It said that the officer who entered into the agreement was without authority to act. The official who signed the agreement retracted to say that he had never been authorised to act. Unsettling settled issues or wrongfully settling issues without sanction both circumstances compromise and interfere with public justice. These circumstances reflect on perjury and contempt to Court proceedings. Notice was issued to the official who retracted and to the organisation whose employee he was. The application of the petitioner that the matter had been settled remained pending on record since 1989.
(2.) A situation which was compromising with public justice saw the initiation of suo moto contempt proceedings against the official of the U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and notice to the Parishad. Before the Court, on record was a situation that on behalf of the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, hereinafter referred to as the Housing Board. At one stage, it was placed on record that there is an understanding by an agreement between the petitioner and the Housing Board which leaves no issues for the Court to examine. No soonor, the writ petition was being laid to rest, it was prevented from such an order because now the very official of the Housing Board who signed the agreement, contended that he had no authority to sign the agreement. There was no issue but in the net result, every issue stood facing the Court to be resolved by hearing simultaneously this contempt action including the action for perjury.
(3.) In one case relating to the Housing Board, this Court noticed that the pleadings which were being placed in Court were affirmed by petty officials and the higher echelons of beauracracy were escaping and avoiding in affirming pleadings before the High Court. This reflected badly on the administrative set up and it amounted to an administration without obligations and responsibility.;