Gujarat High Court
GeoFresh Organic vs The ChairmanShri Kishankumar & ... on 28 September, 2015
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt, R.P.Dholaria
C/MCA/2755/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 2755 of 2015
======================================
GEOFRESH ORGANIC....Applicant
Versus
THE CHAIRMANSHRI KISHANKUMAR & 2....Opponents
======================================
Appearance:
MR AY KOGJE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 28/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited Court's attention to the order passed by this Court on 6th August 2015 in S.C.A. No.8745 of 2015 with specific emphasis upon the operative part, which deserve to be setout as under : "10. By way of interim relief, it is directed that impugned communication dated 09.04.2015 shall operate in respect of Soyabean only.
11. As far as pecuniary sanction of Rs.2 lakhs imposed is concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner makes a statement that the petitioner Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 29 02:03:15 IST 2015 C/MCA/2755/2015 ORDER shall deposit the amount within a period of 15 days from today."
and submitted that on account of this order, the original order, which was impugned in the petition, under which the petitioner was suspended from exporting organic products for six months w.e.f. 10th April 2015, could be said to be confined only for the product Soyabean. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner's other products then Soyabean, therefore, were not to be subjected to any suspension, as could be seen from the order, relevant part whereof is extracted hereinabove.
This Court is also of the prima facie view that there appears to be enigmatic inaction on the part of the concerned as though Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) has not clearly declined but the agency under which APEDA is working has, as could be seen from the annexure annexed to this petition, waiting for APEDA's clearance. The petitioner's communication addressed to APEDA not responded to. In that view of the matter, there appears to be an attempt to avoid implementation of this Court's order which in our prima facie view would amount to disobeying willfully and deliberately this Court's order. Hence, let there be a Notice under the Contempt of Court's Act to all the respondents, returnable on 7th October 2015. We are conscious about the fact that original ban and suspension operating till 10th October 2015, however, as there is clear urging on the part of the counsel that this petition is essentially for seeking appropriate direction qua the deliberate disobedience of the Court's order and hence, we are also of the view that let there be a separate reply from all the concerned explaining the omission on their part in respect of the applications and urging of the petitioner for seeking certification qua other products then Soyabean. In case, if separate reply is not filed by Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 29 02:03:15 IST 2015 C/MCA/2755/2015 ORDER the returnable date, all the respondents shall themselves remain present for explaining their conduct in this behalf. In addition to the regular mode of service, Direct service permitted by way of Speed Post at the cost of the petitioner.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Rathod...
Page 3 of 3HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 29 02:03:15 IST 2015