The Rajasthan High Court has issued a directive to the state government following its failure to comply with court directions regarding the regularization of a specific plot. The court has ordered the establishment of separate Grievance Redressal Cells in all state departments to ensure compliance with court orders.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over a single-judge bench, further instructed the State’s Chief Secretary to oversee these cells, ensuring that they address representations from aggrieved individuals within two months of receiving them. Additionally, each Grievance Redressal Cell should be headed by the Principal Secretary of the respective department.
The bench sitting in Jaipur directed the Chief Secretary of the State, as well as the Principal Secretary and Secretaries of all departments, to establish the Grievance Redressal Cells within two months. The Chief Secretary was specifically instructed to ensure compliance with this order and submit a compliance report to the court within three months.
The court had initially criticised the State authorities for disobeying the court orders twice by ‘keeping their eyes and ears closed’.
“…Disobedience of the Court orders strikes at the very root of the Rule of Law and the judicial orders are bound to be obeyed at all costs”, Justice Dhand observed in the preliminary part of the order before delving deep into the current factual scenario.
Terming the instant case as a ‘glaring example of highhandedness’ exhibited by the State despite the court’s directions on two separate occasions to act upon the petitioner’s representation, the court has warned of contempt proceedings against the authorities. To avoid such a scenario, the court has now instructed the concerned department to decide the representation to be filed by the petitioner within a timeframe of two months.
By placing reliance on the recent decision in Pawan Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 17 wherein state instrumentalities were asked to consider the representations of aggrieved parties swiftly, the High Court has now instructed the formation of a proper framework for the redressal of such grievances.
“….An order passed, right or wrong, has to be obeyed. If the party is affected by any order, he ought to take prompt/diligent steps in resorting to further appellate or revisional proceedings in accordance with law, but in any case, he cannot ignore the order and plead difficulties in implementation of the order passed by the Court”, the court laid down in clear terms about the wrong message that the state’s deliberate ignorance of court orders dated 08.03.2017 and 04.07.2023 would possibly convey.
The main relief sought by the petitioner in this case was a direction to the respondents, including Jaipur Development Authority, to keep the former’s house constructed on a particular plot out of the earmarked facility area. The petitioner wanted the respondents to issue patta in his name with regard to the said plot where he has been living since 1984. Hence, the petitioner wanted the court’s interference to make sure that the construction of the house on the disputed plot gets regularised.
The state’s counsel repeatedly contended on previous occasions that regularising the construction would result in exceeding the 70% limit of residential area, and thereby reduce the facility area by less than 30%. Detailed representations filed by the petitioner before JDA after the court ordered the same in 2017 and 2023 were ignored by the authorities.
“…This Court has observed on various occasions that the respondents are not taking the directions issued by this Court in a serious manner, whenever directions have been issued by this Court to decide the representation of the aggrieved person within a stipulated period and under these circumstances, the litigants are compelled and forced to approach this Court again and again for redressal of similar grievance…”.
Justice Dhand added that hundreds of such petitions are currently pending before the court which can be attributed to the reluctance of state authorities to comply with the court orders in a time-bound manner, ‘for the reasons best known to them’.
The court strongly worded that the consequences of willful disobedience of court orders would be contempt proceedings. Justice Dhand then went on to make the court’s displeasure over the state’s wrongful conduct evident. The court highlighted that no one can be permitted to ‘trounce the majesty of law and pollute the streams of justice by brazenly engaging in contemptuous conduct with an aim of hoodwinking the judicial system’.
Senior Advocate R K Mathur and Advocate Aditya Kiran Mathur appeared for the petitioner.
Case Title: Jagdish Chandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan, through Dy. Secretary to the Government (I) & Ors.
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 986/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 53
