Allahabad High Court
Ms Ankur Machine Tools vs Sri Arvind Kumar, Additional ... on 17 December, 2020
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1139 of 2020 Applicant :- Ms Ankur Machine Tools Opposite Party :- Sri Arvind Kumar, Additional Commissioner, Grade (Iv), Trade Tax Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Surat Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Swapnil Kumar,Praveen Kumar Giri Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Sri S.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no.1, 2 & 4 as well as Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent no.3.
This contempt application has been filed by applicant alleging wilful and intentional disobedience of order dated 27.05.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.46383 of 2013 (M/S Ankur Machine Tools Thru. Anil Pachal Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others). For ready reference order dated 27.05.2019 is reproduced hereinunder:-
"The petitioner by means of this writ petition seeks a direction upon respondents no. 3 and 4 to deliver actual physical possession of plot no. VL-3/3 area 264 sq. meter situate at Industrial Area Site-II Loni Road, Ghaizabad.
The facts and circumstances leading to the controversy in dispute is identical to that giving rise to Writ C No. 6098 of 2015 (Dinesh Chand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., and 3 others) allowed by us by a separate judgment and order of date and as such having heard this matter we allow it also on the same terms and conditions as passed in the above referred decision.
The petition is allowed."
Perusal of order dated 27.05.2019 shows that above noted writ petition filed by petitioner has been decided in terms of order dated 27.05.2019 passed in Writ-C No.6098 of 2015 (Dinesh Chand Tiwari Vs. State of 3 others). Operative portion of judgment and order dated 27.05.2019 which is relevant for the controversy in hand reads as under:-
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is fit case for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction to avoid miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding all the respondents to ensure that the petitioner now represented by his heirs and legal representatives is put in possession of the plot in question VL-3 area 293.50 sq. meters industrial area site-II Loni Raod, Ghaziabad within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced by him or by any party before the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Regional Manager, UPSIDC, Ghaziabad and the Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad and to pay a token compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum as damages from the date of the lease deed till the delivery of the possession to the petitioner. Alternatively, in case for any reason it is still not possible for the respondents to deliver possession of the said plot to the petitioner within the above period, the respondents would in addition to the above compensation pay the petitioner the market value of the land on date determined as per the circle rate notified by the District Magistrate under the Indian Stamp Act for the industrial/commercial purpose for the area where the land is so situate.
It is worth noting that the petitioner has apparently suffered due to the dispute of the two departments of the Government as such has been dragged into this litigation unnecessarily. The Court has also been burdend with this unwanted case and the earlier petition which would have been avoided with little co-ordination of the two bodies and care by the State Government. This unnecessary litigation has resulted in unnecessary expenditure of the public money. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to call from the Commercial Tax Department and the UPSIDC the details of the expenditure incurred by each of them on this litigation viz., the expenses, counsel fee, travelling expenses of the officers/staff in attending the proceedings or the office of the counsel etc. It may be filed by them on affidavit within three months along with a separate affidavit regarding compliance of the mandamus issued by the Court. The expenses so incurred shall be deposited by the Commercial Tax Department and UPSIDC with State Treasury within a month thereafter and may be recovered from the officers responsible. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application in this decided petition itself in the event any of the above directions are not complied with by any of the respondents.
The writ petition is allowed."
As directions contained in order dated 27.05.2019 were not complied with, petitioner/applicant filed present contempt application.
Instant contempt application came up for admission on 18.02.2020 and this Court issued notices to opposite parties to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them.
Pursuant to order dated 18.02.2020 passed by this Court, an exemption application duly supported by an affidavit of compliance has been filed by opposite party no.1. Exemption has been claimed on the ground that against order of writ court Special Leave to Appeal has been filed before Apex Court. Therefore till the pendency of Special Leave to Appeal which has been preferred before the Apex Court, the contempt proceedings be deferred and the notice of contempt issued against opposite party 1 be discharged accordingly. A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party 3, wherein the same defence as taken by opposite party 1 has been taken. Furthermore, for respondents which has been taken place has also been detailed.
However, no affidavit has been filed by other three opposite parties in compliance of order dated 18.02.2020. As such, in compliance of order dated 18.02.2020 they have not yet shown cause as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against them.
On the matter being taken up today, learned counsel for applicant vehemently contends that though a period of one year and seven months has expired from the date of the order of writ court, the same has not yet been complied with till date.
At this stage, Sri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General very humbly submits that no exception can be taken to the directions contained in the order of the writ court dated 27.05.2019. However, expressing the bona fide of opposite parties, he contends that hearing of present contempt application be deferred for the day to enable opposite parties to comply with direction no.2 contained in order of writ court dated 27.05.2019 before the next date fixed in the matter.
Considering the bona fide expressed by learned Additional Advocate General and there being no reason to doubt the same, hearing of present contempt application is deferred. Accordingly, the matter shall come up again on 05.01.2021 along with connected matters i.e. Contempt Application (Civil) No.1126 of 2020 and Contempt Application (Civil) No.1140 of 2020.
It is however provided that on the next date in compliance of direction no.2 contained in the order of the writ court dated 27.05.2019 i.e. the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.1 lac per year from the date of execution of the lease till date shall be placed before this Court by means of a bank draft drawn in favour of petitioner/applicant to be handed over to the applicant. In case, aforesaid direction is not complied with, all the opposite parties shall appear before this Court in person for framing of charge.
In view of above, the exemption application dated 23.11.2020 filed by opposite party no.1 is, hereby, rejected.
Order Date :- 17.12.2020 SK Goswami