- (1.) This matter is connected with Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1950 in which order has just been passed. The present application is under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, Act 12 of 1926, and by it we are asked to take, proceedings for contempt against the Additional Deputy Commissioner S. Jaswant Singh Uppal P.C.S. and against Mian Raghbir Singh, now and formerly Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur and Tehsildar, Rehabilitation Gurdaspur. The contempt alleged to have been committed is violation of an order made by Chief Justice Dewan Ram Lal on the 20th of October, 1948 where in the Civil Revision application referred to in the judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1950 filed against the vacation by an officer of the Rehabilitation Department of a so called stay order the learned Chief Justice when admitting the revision application made the following order :- "Let the proceeding for delivery of possession be stayed pending decision of this petition. Telegram at petitioner's expense."
(2.) It is sufficient to look only to the application made under section 3 of the Contempt or Courts Act to hold that no justification exists for any action by us under the Contempt of Courts Act. The only material paragraphs of the petition are paragraphs 8, 13, 14 and 15. Paragraphs 8 is an follows :- "That the allottees of the lands attempted to take forcible possession but the possession of the petitioner was maintained by proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, taken in the Court of Shri G.R. Vij, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalhousie. In this paragraph there is no allegation of action taken by the respondent-officers. Paragraph 13 only says that the Rehabilitation Authorities again allotted the land with full knowledge of the stay order which was made. It has been sought to be argued that any order of allotment is a proceedings for delivery of possession. But whatever rights an allottee may have to possession I cannot accept that a formal allotment or even re-allotment of the lands in dispute could be taken to be action by the respondent-officer contrary to the stay order of the 20th of October, 1948. Paragraph 14 of the application merely states that the additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, seems to be responsible for the allotment of the lands tending to dispossess the petitioner. Apart from the circumstances that this is not even a statement of fact it contains nothing on which any action by us could be taken. Paragraph 15 merely repeats more or less what is said in paragraph 14 and alleges that the Additional Deputy Commissioner and others (unnamed) have by showing wilful disregard of an order of this Court interfered with the due administration of an order of this Court interfered with the due of administration of justice.
(3.) In short I find no grounds stated in the petition of which the action asked to take could be justified. I would therefore discharge the rule with costs which I would assess at Rs. 50. Falshaw, J.;