1. By this application under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance IV of 2003, the applicant seeks action against the alleged contemnors, mentioned in the application, for violation of the order, dated 15-11-2002 whereby the petition was allowed. The Court, while allowing the petition, observed that though there was no material before it indicating that the cancellation had taken place under Ordinance III of 2001 but it was open for the Government to take any appropriate action as sanctioned by law. Respondent No,5 was also allowed to take any measures enjoying the sanction of law.
2. The facts appear to be that the cancellation order, dated 12-12-1997, issued by the K.D.A. in respect of Plot No,ST-1 admeasuring 820 sq. yards, situated in Metroville-1 (SITE), which was the subject- matter of this petition was set aside. It further appears that Ordinance III of 2001 was enacted in January, 2001, whereby, amongst others, the allotment of the plot in dispute was once again cancelled. K.D.A. by its letter dated 6-3-2003, referred the matter to the Committee which was constituted under the said Ordinance. The Committee exercising the powers under the said Ordinance, decided the case of the petitioner pertaining to said plot and allowed them to get it regularized subject to his paying the amount mentioned in the decision. The case of the petitioner is that the K.D.A. had no lawful authority to refer the matter to the Committee after the order, dated 15-11-2002 was passed by this Court, as the Ordinance III of 2001 was not applicable to his case.
3. It is noted that after the matter was referred to the Committee, the petitioner was represented there and heard before the decision was taken by the Committee. It is also noted that the petitioner has neither challenged the action of K.D.A. of referring the matter to the Committee nor challenged the order of the Committee before any forum for want of jurisdiction.
4. At present we are dealing with the contempt application and under the given facts and circumstances observed above, we do not find that the alleged contemnors had committed any contempt of the Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed.