Uttarakhand High Court
Rural Litigation And Entitlement ... vs Ramesh Pohkriyal Nishank on 15 October, 2020
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Contempt Petition (CLCON No. 270 of 2020)
With
Miscellaneous Application with Compliance Affidavit No. 9694/2020
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra ...Petitioner
Vs.
Ramesh Pohkriyal Nishank ...Respondent
Advocate: Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pankaj
Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing) In this contempt petition, the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.05.2019, as rendered in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 90 of 2019, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others, and the direction, contained therein has been sought to be complied with, the said judgement in its para 44 and 117, provided for the compliance of directions, which read as under:-
"44. In his affidavit dated 12.02.2019, the Additional Secretary/Estate Officer has stated that this Court had passed an order on 16.02.2017 to calculate the market rent for use and occupation of the premises beyond the period of entitlement; and, in terms of the directions of the High Court, market rent had been calculated at a fixed market value. The market value of the rent due from the Ex-Chief Ministers, even according to the Estates Department, is as under:-
Ø0 Ek0 HkwriwoZ vkokl esa v/;klu dk fooj.k cktkj nj ij la0 eq[;ea=hx.kksa dk vkadfyr djrs gq, uke /kujkf"k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 01- Jh jes'k iks[kfj;ky 11-09-2011 ls 17-02-2014 rd 41]64]389-00 fu'kad th 18-02-2014 ls 13-12-2016 rd 02- Jh Hkqou pUnz 26-01-2010 ls 10-09-2011 rd 48]49]816-00 [k.Mwjh 07-03-2012 ls 29-11-2016 rd 07-03-2012 ls 20-11-2014 rd 03- Jh fot; cgqxq.kk 03-02-2014 ls 12-02-2014 rFkk 37]90]078-00 16-06-2015 ls 15-02-2017 rd 04- Jh Hkxr flag 18-12-2003 ls 19-11-2016 rd 47]57]758-00 dks';kjh 2 05- Lo0 Jh ukjk;.k nÙk 29-02-2007 ls 15-02-2017 rd 1]12]98]182-00 frokjh dqy ;ksx 28]860]223-00
117. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent nos.3 to 6 to pay the market rent as detailed in the affidavit of the Additional Secretary/Estates Officer dated 12.02.2019, for the buildings occupied by them as Ex-Chief Ministers, within six months from today, failing which the State Government shall, forthwith, initiate appropriate legal proceedings, including under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, for recovery of the said amounts from them. The amounts already paid by respondent nos.3, 5 and 6 towards rent, for occupation of these premises, shall be given credit to. The amount specified in the table referred to in the affidavit of the Additional Secretary/Estates Officer dated 12.02.2019, after deducting the amount paid by them as rent, shall be paid by the respondent nos.3 to 6 within the aforesaid period of six months."
2. The direction given by the Division Bench was for depositing entire the penal rent and other amount due for the amenities availed, which was directed to be recovered from the Ex-Chief Minister of the State, against whom the PIL was drawn. It was directed to be deposited within a period of six months from the date of the judgement and on its failure to pay the amount, the Division Bench had directed an action to be taken against them under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, for the purposes of the recovery of the said amount.
3. The foundation of the Division Bench judgement, as referred in para 117, was based upon an affidavit of Additional Secretary/Estates Officer of the State dated 12.02.2019, which has been referred in the above paragraph No. 117 of the Division Bench judgement dated 03.05.2019, in which the details of liabilities to be met by each of them was detailed, by quantifying the amount.
4. The issue, which has been racked up today, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the so-called compliance affidavit, filed by the respondent and the deposit, as projected in the application of compliance to have been made by the respondent in fact is not in consonance to the determination, which has now been made by Mr. Deependra Kumar Chaudhary, Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, vide his 3 communication No. 821/xxxii(2)/2020/03(31)/2015 dated 10.09.2020. By virtue of the said communication dated 10.09.2020, the Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Uttarakhand has directed the respondent No. 1, to remit an amount as determined by him to be of Rs. 10,77,709/-.
5. After having considered the rival arguments, and the records, in fact, this determination, which has been made by Mr. Deependra Kumar Chaudhary, the Additional Secretry, on 10.09.2020, runs contrary to the prior determination, which was considered by the Division Bench of this Court, which was submitted by way of an affidavit by the then Additional Secretary/Estate Officer, by an affidavit dated 12.02.2019, where the State itself in compliance of the earlier order passed by the Division Bench on 16.02.2017, had calculated the respective liability of rent for the use of an occupation of the premises and other dues towards amenities and the said affidavit as submitted by the State, itself earlier on 12.02.2019, had shown the amount of liability payable by the respondent 1, to be Rs. 41,64,389/-
6. Since this affidavit finds reference in the conclusion drawn by the Division Bench and it was the basis for fixing a liability by virtue of its para 117, it means that the Court has accepted that the said determination made and as submitted by the State itself in its affidavit dated 12.02.2019, whereby the direction was issued for the remittance of the amount to be recovered in accordance with the process contemplated under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.
7. As far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, his case before me, is that, once he has approached the respondent, after the institution of this contempt petition, and he was communicated by the Additional Secretary/Estate Officer of the Govt. of Uttarakhand, vide his letter dated 10.09.2020, of the amount of liability due to be paid, his contention was that whatsoever amount was demanded, he has remitted the same hence according to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, the judgement stands complied with, on his part.
48. But the petitioner's counsel submits that this determination, which was made by the Additional Secretary on 10.09.2020, runs contrary to the earlier affidavit of the State dated 12.02.2019, itself which had quantified the respective liability and was the foundation of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, which is being sought to be enforced i.e. dated 03.05.2019.
9. This determination made by Mr. Deependra Kumar Chaudhary, Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Uttarakhand, vide his determination as made on 10.09.2020, will in itself amount to be a contempt of a criminal nature for the reason being that he has sat upon a determination, which has already been made by the Division Bench of this Court and that too when it was based upon the state's own stand taken in their affidavit filed by the then Additional Secretary dated 21.02.2019. Recalculating the amount and that too contrary to the statements of account which was submitted in pursuance to the order of this Court, it would amount to be a deliberate and an intentional contempt and rather it would be an attempt to mislead the Court also by portraying a different liabilities than what has been considered by the Division Bench in its judgement. This Court is of the view that it is an act of an intentional contempt, hence Mr. Deependra Kumar Chaudhary, Additional Secretary, Govt. of Uttarakhand is liable to be noticed for committing a wilful contempt.
10. In these circumstances, this Court, suo moto takes cognizance and direct the petitioner to implead Mr. Deependra Kumar Chaudhary, Additional Secretary, Govt. of Uttarakhand as party respondent No. 2 to the contempt petition. Issue notice to him to show cause as to how and in what manner he has determined the amount, payable by the respondent No. 1, contrary to affidavit, which was placed before the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.02.2019 and was the basis of the judgement dated 03.05.2019.
511. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, is directed to ensure service of notice on the Additional Secretary, Mr. Deependra Kumar Chaudhary, who is called upon to file his response within a period of one week from today.
12. List this contempt petition immediately after one week.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 15.10.2020 Mahinder/