Allahabad High Court
Rajneesh Kumar Ojha vs Ms. Neha Sharma D.M. on 24 August, 2023
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171021 Court No. - 9 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2367 of 2022 Applicant :- Rajneesh Kumar Ojha Opposite Party :- Ms. Neha Sharma D.M. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Bhardwaj,Neetu Singh,Sushil Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The writ Court on 10.11.2021, while disposing of the Writ-C No.28510 of 2021, had passed the following order:-
"Heard Shri Prashant Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1 & 2. Sri Wasim Masood, counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.3.
The petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, to take appropriate action for executing the recovery certificate dated 19.2.2020 in Complaint No.220187065 (Rajneesh Kumar Ojha Vs. M/S Collage Group Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.). It has been submitted by the petitioner that the recovery certificate against the Respondent No.4 was issued as far back on 19.2.2020, but the same has not been executed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, so far and the petitioner is being denied the fruits of the order of RERA Authorities, which was passed in his favour on 28.1.2019.
Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same can be disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to proceed with the recovery certificate.
On perusal of the order-sheet, we find that the respondent No.4 against whom the recovery certificate is sought to be enforced has not been noticed. However, since we intend to dispose of the writ petition finally, the notice upon the Respondent No.4 is dispensed with.
In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, to make all endeavour to execute the recovery certificate dated 19.2.2020, which has been issued for recovery of Rs.10,903,100.88/-, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month of serving a certified copy of this order upon him, if there is no other legal impediment."
From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that a direction was issued to the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to make all endeavour to execute recovery certificate dated 19.02.2020.
An affidavit of compliance has been filed on behalf of the opposite party, wherein in paras 6, 7 and 8, it has been mentioned that the address given in the recovery certificate was not correct and the person against whom recovery certificate has been issued does not reside at that place. An inquiry has been conducted by the officers of Kanpur Nagar and report has been submitted and the recovery certificate has been sent back to RERA.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he may provide alternate address at which the recovery certificate may be executed.
This Court finds that once the recovery certificate has been returned to RERA, it is for the RERA to again issue recovery certificate as the new address is to be provided by the applicant for issuance of recovery certificate.
This Court finds that no case for contempt is made out, at this stage.
Accordingly, contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2023 SK Goswami