The Court questioned how and for what purposes the revenue department roped in the services of HYDRAA, when the property was declared to be the property of the petitioner by the competent courts.
“These facts are suffice to hold that the acts of respondent/ contemnor amount to interference in the administration of justice and wilful disobedience of Court orders.
Such acts not only undermine the majesty of Courts, but also undermine the Rule of Law,” the Court said.
On July 23, the Court had contemplated directing Army to protect the disputed site, stating that it had lost its faith in the State government and its instrumentalities.
However, the Court later kept the direction in abeyance on State's assurance that HYDRAA would abide by court orders.
The Court questioned how and for what purposes the revenue department roped in the services of HYDRAA, when the property was declared to be the property of the petitioner by the competent courts.
It also noted that no notice had been issued to the petitioners.
“These facts are suffice to hold that the acts of respondent/ contemnor amount to interference in the administration of justice and wilful disobedience of Court orders. Such acts not only undermine the majesty of Courts, but also undermine the Rule of Law,” the Court said.
The Bench added that courts cannot turn a blind eye to the acts of authorities who flagrantly violate judicial orders under one guise or the other for reasons best known to them.
Thus, it ruled that acts of the contemnor constitute “wilful, deliberate, intentional disobedience to the restraining orders of this Court and breach of an undertaking given”.”
The Court rejected the Commissioner's apology, observing that it was not genuine and was tendered only after the Court expressed displeasure over the absence of an apology in his first affidavit.
On July 23, the Court had contemplated directing Army to protect the disputed site, stating that it had lost its faith in the State government and its instrumentalities. However, the Court later kept the direction in abeyance on State's assurance that HYDRAA would abide by court orders.
