Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Renewable Energy Development ... vs Hitesh Rore on 4 October, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
COCP No.2906 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.2906 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 04.10.2012
Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Hitesh Rore, Partner M/s RGVP Energy
Sources Regd. and another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
The petitioner (respondent No.3 in CWP No.12183 of 2012) has filed the instant contempt petition for taking action against the respondents herein (i.e. petitioner in CWP No.12183 of 2012 ) for disobeying the orders of this Court dated 7.9.2012 (Annexure P-4) whereby allegedly a direction was given to the respondents to take steps to renew the Bank guarantee within one week from the date of said order.
As per the averments, the respondents herein filed a writ petition challenging the orders dated 5.6.2012 and 22.6.2012 (Annexures P-13 and P-17) whereby the petitioner had ordered the encashment of Bank guarantee furnished by the respondents in pursuance to the rate contract executed between the parties on various grounds.
The said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 2.7.2012 and the following order was passed:
"Notice of motion for 7.9.2012. In the meantime, operation of Annexure P- 13 and P-17 shall remain stayed." COCP No.2906 of 2012 2
Order dated 7.9.2012 be also noticed at this stage:
"Mr. Talwar, learned counsel for the respondents states that they are not inclined to encash the bank guarantee however the same has already expired on 14.8.2012 and the same ought to be renewed.
Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, petitioner is directed to take steps to renew the bank guarantee.
Let needful be done within one week from today.
Adjourned to 15.11.2012."
In the instant contempt petition, it has been alleged by the petitioner that the respondents herein were directed to take steps to renew the bank guarantee. However, they have not done the needful and thus, the order dated 7.9.2012 has been disobeyed by them wilfully and they are liable to be punished.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contempt petition as well as documents placed on record on the said writ petition.
At the outset, it may be noticed that except the facts as noticed above, the contempt petition is totally silent with regard to the facts placed on record of Civil Writ Petition No.12183 of 2012. Even Annexures P-13 and Annexure P-17 attached with the writ petition (operation of which was stayed vide order dated 2.7.2012 in CWP No.12183 of 2012), have not been placed on record of the contempt petition so as to know the exact COCP No.2906 of 2012 3 nature of the said orders and to consider the effect of the interim orders passed by the Writ Court on 2.7.2012 as well as order dated 7.9.2012 passed in the instant contempt petition.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid non-availability of facts in the petition as well as the factum of pendency of the writ petition, this Court raised a query to the counsel representing the petitioner as to why an appropriate application seeking vacation of the interim order dated 2.7.2012 passed by the Writ Court has not been filed instead of the instant contempt petition.
In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that CM Nos.14231-32 of 2012 have already been prepared on 27.9.2012 along with an affidavit dated 27.9.2012 and the same has been filed on 3.10.2012 simultaneously along with this contempt petition and the same has not been listed so far.
At the cost of repetition, it may be noticed that the application for vacation of stay order dated 2.7.2012 in the writ petition and the instant contempt petition were filed on 3.10.2012 simultaneously in this Court through the same counsel but the petitioner herein has not disclosed the said factum of filing of the application for vacation of interim order in the instant contempt petition. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has suppressed the aforesaid material fact of filing the application seeking necessary relief in the writ petition itself. Thus, in this view of the matter, the petitioner knowing fully well that the main writ petition is still pending and Writ Court is seized of all the facts and circumstances of the case and that an appropriate application for vacation of interim order has been filed, has chosen to file the instant petition with an ulterior motive of threatening the respondents of the alleged contempt which amounts to COCP No.2906 of 2012 4 abuse of process of law. Moreover, this amounts to multiplicity of litigation resulting into wastage of precious time of the Court and the same cannot be allowed by entertaining such frivolous petitions. Further, the petitioner cannot be allowed to pursue two remedies simultaneously for redressal of its grievances.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 842 and also in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association versus Union of India 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530 and in the case of Vinod Seth versus Devinder Bajaj & another 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 813, has observed that to stop the frivolous litigation and the abuse of process of law, the Court should resort to impose exemplary/real costs.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, this is a fit case, where the petitioner should be burdened with exemplary/real costs.
Therefore, this petition is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-. The costs be deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within one month from today.
October 04, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE