Allahabad High Court
M/S Yasvi Enterprises vs Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Vice ... on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1130 of 2023
Applicant :- M/S Yasvi Enterprises
Opposite Party :- Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Vice Chairperson And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramashray Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Satyendra Tripathi,Satendra Tirpathi
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The writ Court on 20.10.2022 while disposing of Writ-C No. 31886of 2022 passed the following order:-
"The petitioner has filed the instant petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to refund the earnest money deposit (EMD) against E-tender dated 14.4.2018 i.e., a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest and for a further direction to respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision on the representations filed by the petitioner firm dated 23.06.2022, 27.07.2022, 10.08.2022 and 10.09.2022.
It seems that EMD deposited by the petitioner while submitting the bid has not been returned to it despite the fact that it was unsuccessful bidder.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 Sri Satendra Tripathi states that the representations filed by the petitioner firm will be decided.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merit, the petition is disposed of with direction to the concerned Authority to decide the representations dated 23.06.2022, 27.07.2022, 10.08.2022 and 10.09.2022 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a true attested copy of the instant order along with photostat copy of the representations."
Pursuant to order of writ Court, opposite party decided the representation on 17.01.2023, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to affidavit of compliance filed on 23.03.2023.
This Court finds that order of writ Court has been complied with and the representation which was filed by the applicant has been decided by the authorities.
Despite the said fact, counsel for the applicant kept on insisting to adjudicate the matter on merits. This Court finds that this is a Court of execution and not of adjudication. The writ Court had not granted any relief to the applicant and had only directed the authorities to decide the representation without expressing any opinion on the merits. It was upon the authorities to adjudicate the matter which they have done and if the applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the authorities, he may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.
The Apex Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held as under:-
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
This Court finds that no case for contempt is made out.
The contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.4.2023
V.S.Singh
