This is an application/Crl. Original under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, for initiating action against respondents Nos.2 to 7 for having committed the violation of the order of this Court dated 18-2-1990 and for having breached the undertaking given by them.
2. The material facts to be noted are that the applicant had instituted the constitution petition bearing No.2334 of 1989 against respondents Nos. 1 to 8. It was alleged therein that respondents Nos.2 to 7 had purchased a piece of land measuring 20 Kanals and intended to establish a fruit and vegetable market over it after obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority under the provisions of Ordinance XXIII of 1978. It was therein prayed that the petition be accepted and respondent No.1 be directed to take necessary steps against respondents Nos.2 to 7 and stop them from carrying on the business of sale and purchase of fruit and vegetables on the illegally established new fruit and vegetable market. On 18-2-1989, respondents Nos.2 to 7 made a statement to the effect that they will not undertake any further construction or carrying of business of the site in question except in accordance with law. On this statement the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as the petition had borne fruit for the time being he did not press the same any further. Accordingly the petition was disposed of in the above terms.
3. In pursuance of the efforts of respondents Nos.2 to 7 the Government of Punjab accorded sanction for establishment of new fruit and vegetable market at Jampur on the aforesaid piece of land subject to seven conditions enumerated in the order of Government of Punjab dated 30-1- 1990.
4. It is complained that respondents Nos.2 to 7 have not -complied with the conditions of the order of the Government dated 30-1-1990. Neither they had transferred the land to the Market Committee Jampur nor they have constructed roads, water-supply and sewerage system. According to the learned counsel, this conduct of respondents Nos.2 to 7 is tantamount to violation of the undertaking given to this Court as well as the breach of the conditions embodied in the agreement noted above. According to the learned counsel, the respondents Nos.2 to 7 be punished under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.2 to 7 on the contrary controverted the factual allegations contained in the Crl. Original. According to him respondents Nos.2 to 7 have gifted 270 Marlas of land to the Market Committee. It was further stated that roads, offices of the Market Committee, have been built up. According to him no date was fixed in the agreement for the transfer of land by respondents Nos.2 to 7. At such, the respondents have not violated any order of the Court of the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement noted above.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 7. Prima facie none of the undertakings given to this Court has been breached. The undertaking given to the Court was that respondents Nos.2 to 7 shall not raise construction except in accordance with law. It is the case of both the parties, that the Government of Punjab had sanctioned the establishment of Market at the disputed site owned by respondents Nos.2 to 7. It is further stated by the respondents Nos.2 to 7 that they had already donated 272 Marlas of land to the Jampur Vegetable and Fruit Market under the agreement. In short from the examination of the submissions of the two parties, do not find it a fit case in which proceedings under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act be initiated against respondents Nos.2 to 7. There seems to be a dispute between them on the construction of this Market.
Even otherwise it is a settled principle of law that the matters of contempt are essentially between the Court and the contemners. The Court concerned, for reasons of its own and in exercise of discretion may refuse to take any action. Reference be made to West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority through its Chairman v. Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission PLD 1979 SC 912.
7. In the light of foregoing enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, I do not find the necessity of initiating any action under the Contempt of Courts Act against respondents Nos.2 to 7. Resultantly this Criminal Original is dismissed.
N.H.Q./M-514/L