- (1.) In response to notice issued by this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent. The respondent has appeared through Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari learned counsel and reply has been filed stating that there appears to be some misunderstanding about the statement made in reply to the Writ Petition No. 797/89 about which allegations were made in Writ Petition No. 1941/97 alleging that the answering respondents are back tracking from the statements made earlier in reply before this Court There appears to be substance in what is stated by the learned counsel and as stated in the reply to show cause notice. The Writ Petition No. 797/89 has been disposed of by order dated 24.7.95 in the following terms:- "By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directing them not to regularise illegal encroachments. He has claimed mandamus against the respondent No. 3 who is individual restraining him for alienating certain lands as they do not belong to him. In reply to the notice the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 categorically stated that they have not in the past and they will not in the future regularise any illegal encroachments. No writ issued against the private individual. In view of the submissions made by the responsible officer respondent Nos. 1 and 2, there is no reasons to entertain the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
(2.) The aforesaid order clearly refers to statement made in reply to the 25 notice of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and not to statements made in the Court in contrast with what has been stated in the order dated 24.7.95. Para 3 of the reply filed in writ petition No. 797/89. The relevant paragraph No. 3 reads as under:- The answering respondent, however, emphatically denies of its maintaining silence in the matters of encroachment. The answering-respondent has removed the encroachment from time to time and has not provided any encouragement to any land graber. The allegations of in-activities and wilful neglect against the U.I.T.are wrong and are emphatically denied.
(3.) The marked difference between the statement actually made in the reply and inferential projection in the order can be perceived on reading two statements together. We find that in reply filed by the answering respondents in Writ Petition No. 797/89 they did nothing more than stating that answering respondent has removed the encroachment from time to time and has not provided any encouragement to any land grabber and no statement in absolute terms has been made in the reply and observations in the order dated 24.7.95 actually are not re-production of the statement made in the reply but projection of inference drawn by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition.;