Allahabad High Court
M/S Chennai Msw Pvt. Ltd. vs Lokesh M., Chief Executive Officer on 17 May, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89523
Court No. - 51
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 8176 of 2023
Applicant :- M/S Chennai Msw Pvt. Ltd.
Opposite Party :- Lokesh M., Chief Executive Officer
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Tripathi,Syed Imran Ibrahim
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankur Agarwal
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The writ Court on 09.11.2022 while disposing of Writ-C No.26339 of 2022 had passed the following order:-
"Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ami Tandon and Shri Vedant Agarwal for the petitioner and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh for the respondent.
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, was awarded a contract for integrated mechanical and manual sweeping of main roads in NOIDA. The concession agreement was executed between the parties on 30.07.2015. The duration of the contract was five years. The respondent Authority issued orders from time to time whereunder the petitioner was required to continue to discharge its obligation under the contract although it's term had expired. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the petitioner-company has filed the instant writ petition for various reliefs.
On 01.11.2022, we passed the following order:-
"Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Noida, on instructions, states that the Noida will not be compelling the petitioner to continue with the contract but since the work of cleaning to be carried out under the contract involves public interest, therefore, until finalization of fresh contract, the respondent would request the petitioner to continue with the work on a mutually negotiated enhanced rate.
Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not have any objection to the same. He, however, submits that the respondents should disclose the rates that they intend to offer to the petitioner as well as the time frame within which fresh contract will be settled so as to avoid any future dispute.
Having regard to the submissions made and as requested by Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, we adjourn the matter to enable him to complete his instructions on above two aspects by tomorrow.
List as fresh on 3.11.2022 along with connected case."
In compliance of the above order, the respondent has issued an order on 02.11.2022 addressed to the petitioner-company and according to which, it has agreed to discharge the petitioner from its obligation under the contract on 30.11.2022 and to increase the rates by 2.08% every year after expiry of five years period under the contract.
Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh appearing for the respondent states that all arrears due to the petitioner-company at the increased rate, as disclosed in the letter dated 02.11.2022, shall be paid to the petitioner-company by 07.12.2022.
Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly agreed to the proposal.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above proposal and its acceptance by the petitioner."
From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.
Today, an affidavit of compliance has been filed on behalf of the opposite party, wherein in para 4, it has been stated that the performance guarantee amounting to Rs.73 lacs was paid by the Authorities in December, 2023. Further, in para 5, it has been stated that complying the order of the writ Court, final bill amounting to Rs.1,83,75,787/- has been paid after increasing the rate as directed.
In para 6 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that the Authorities had agreed in principle to pay Rs.6,07,850/- towards the increased amount of Rs.1,000/- per month per employee from 01.04.2022 to 30.11.2022, and the payment shall be paid to the applicant subject to approval of the competent authority.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that certain amount has remained unpaid, and the break-up wise payment has not been given by the opposite party. She further contends that it is not the compliance of the order of the writ Court as the increased rates by 2.08% every year was to be given as per the contract to the applicant, but the same has not been calculated by the Authorities and paid to the applicant.
After hearing counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that from the affidavit of compliance filed by the opposite party, substantial compliance of the order of the writ Court has been done. This Court is the Court of execution, and it cannot delve into the disputed questions of facts and adjudicate the matters on merits. It is the writ Court which is the Court of adjudication, which after calling counter and rejoinder affidavit can adjudicate the disputes on merits.
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another; 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held that no roving inquiry can be done while exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Relevant para 8 of the said judgment is extracted here as under:-
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "willful" 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 willfulness 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 vigor 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."
In view of above, I find that as the sufficient compliance has been done, no case for contempt is made out.
Present contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed.
However, it is open to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of any grievance which has remained unattended, if so advised.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
SK Goswami
