M/S Naveen Kumar Chopda, Through ... vs Ranjan Kumar Lal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3296 Chatt

                                              1



                                                                                     NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                              CONT No. 694 of 2021
    M/s Naveen Kumar Chopda, Through Its Proprietor Naveen Kumar
     Chopda Aged About 46 Years Transport Contractor, Having Its Office At
     Fci Road, Tarbahar, Fatak, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
                                                                        ---- Petitioner
                                       Versus
    Ranjan Kumar Lal Dgm Raipur Ird And Duly Constituted Attorney Of
     Hpcl, Hpcl Raipur Chhattisgarh 492101
    Brijesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Phusu Aged About 42 Years Working As
     Chief Regional Manager, Raipur Regional Office Hpcl Raipur
     Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ---- Respondent

For Petitioner                            :       Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate
For Respondents                           :       Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate


                     Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy
                   Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
                               Order on Board
06/05/2022

Per, Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy

1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance

and willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in WPC No.

3162/2018. For ready reference the operative part of the directions

given by the Division Bench of this Court is reproduced herein under:

"29. In the light of the discussion made above, we hold that there is no merit in the writ petition as to the alleged violation of the Clause 6(2) of Annexure- P/4 Procurement Policy Order or the relevant terms and conditions of the Annexure-P/2 Tender w.r.t. the claim for sharing of work on 'proportionate basis' among the different MSEs at L1 level. However, in view of the challenge already raised against the eligibility and qualification of the 7th Respondent, who has already been blacklisted, terminating the agreement and rejecting all the '15' vehicles offered by him, the Respondent-HPCL is directed to consider the matter for filling up the vacated slot at Sl.No. 6 because of the ouster of the 7th Respondent for issuance of 'LOA' to the eligible bidder / bidders next in the queue, based on their merit;

along with the point discussed in the previous paragraph. The said exercise shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, with a period 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

2. From the plain reading of the observations and direction given by the

Division Bench, while deciding the writ petition is evidently clear that the

direction was for the respondents-HPCL to consider and take a decision

on the claim of the petitioner in the light of the ouster of the 7 th

respondent in the writ petition. Pursuant to the directions given by this

Court, the respondents have taken a decision vide order dated

07.04.2021 and while taking a decision the respondents reached to the

conclusion that the tender conditions do not permit the petitioner to be

declared eligible and therefore request of the petitioner was refused or

rejected.

3. The decision of the respondents dated 07.04.2021 was subjected to

challenge in an altogether fresh writ petition WPC No. 2342/2021. The

said writ petition finally stood allowed on 16.12.2021, thereby the earlier

order passed by the respondents-HPCL on 07.04.2021 was quashed

and the respondents authorities were directed to reconsider the claim of

the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order in the light of the

observations made in the said order.

4. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that, that writ petition i.e. WPC

No. 2342/2021 was decided by an altogether different bench, to which

neither of us were a member. Pursuant to the order passed by the

Division Bench in the said writ petition WPC No. 2342/2021, the

respondents have yet again passed another order on 11.01.2022

towards compliance of the order which has been brought on record by

the respondents as Annexure R/2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner

himself submits that this order dated 11.01.2022 amounts to only part

compliance of the order. However the essence of the directions given

by the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigations have not been

adhered to while taking a decision.

5. Be that as it may considering the fact that the respondents now have

taken a decision on 11.01.2022. Pursuant to the directions given by the

Division Bench of this Court in WPC No. 2342/2021 we are of the

considered opinion that the only option now left for the petitioner is to

either challenge the order dated 11.01.2022 by way of a fresh writ

petition or if at all if the contention of the petitioner is that it still amounts

to contempt of the directives given by the Bench in WPC No.

2342/2021, even then it would be a fresh contempt petition that the

petitioner would require to file before the concerned Bench having

roster.

6. So far as this Bench is concerned, it is only to examine the limited

extent as to whether the directions given by this Court in WPC No.

3162/2018 has been complied or not. Undisputedly, pursuant to the

order of this Court in the said writ petition, the respondents have

passed an order on 07.04.2021. The veracity of that order has already

been put to test in WPC No. 2342/2021. No contempt as such is made

out arising out of WPC No. 3162/2018. Reserving the right of the

petitioner to avail such other appropriate remedies available to him, the

present contempt petition as of now stands closed.

7. The respondents stand discharged of the contempt proceedings.

                Sd/-                                           Sd/-
          (P. Sam Koshy)                              (Parth Prateem Sahu)
               Judge                                          Judge

Ved