Gujarat High Court
Yogita Allied And Calcine Products vs State Of Gujarat Mamta Varma on 17 April, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/771/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 771 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15754 of 2021
================================================================
YOGITA ALLIED AND CALCINE PRODUCTS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT MAMTA VARMA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AS VAKIL(962) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 17/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application is filed for seeking initiation of
contempt proceedings against the respondents for
committing Contempt of Court for willful defiance of the
order dated 23.06.2022 passed in Special Civil
Application No.15754 of 2021, i.e. the captioned writ
petition.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2025, the respondent
No.2-Additional Director (Development) I/C. has filed an
Affidavit dated 14.04.2025, wherein a specific statement
has been made to the extent that an amount of
Rs.89,57,781.24 has been ordered to be deposited in the
account of the applicant on 09.04.2025.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/771/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. A.S. Vakil appearing for the
applicant has tendered an Additional Affidavit dated
14.04.2025 on behalf of the applicant-original petitioner.
The same is ordered to be taken on record. He has
submitted that in fact the respondents have committed an
aggravated form of contempt by issuing a communication
dated 11.04.2025 with regard to retaining the payment of
District Mineral Foundation (DMF), which has been
realized after the notice dated 09.10.2018 issued to the
applicant. He has also pointed out the communication
dated 13.07.2023 with regard to the payment of DMF
amount of Rs.31,31,542/- and the accrued interest of
Rs.2,67,293/-. It is submitted that it impermissible for the
respondents to recover the said amount. It is also
submitted that since the amount is paid in the month of
April 2025, they are entitled to interest as directed by
this Court.
4. Thus, it is submitted that the direction issued by this
Court in the order dated 23.06.2022 remains un-complied
and it is urged that the subsequent action of the
respondents with regard to issuing of the communication
dated 11.04.2024, related to DMF contribution, is
contemptuous. Hence, it is urged that appropriate order
may be passed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/771/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr. A.S. Vakil has also pointed out that
so far as the amount of refund of DMF is concerned, the
State Government had also issued notice on 09.10.2018,
and they were aware that the amounts were to be
refunded and despite the submission and having been
recorded in Paragraph No.5 of the order dated
23.06.2022, they have not refunded the amount of DMF
and hence, the respondent authorities have committed
the contempt.
6. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda has referred to
the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2.
She has submitted that the amount as mentioned
hereinabove is already paid.
7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. The present application emanates from
the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by this Court in a
group of petitions and one of such is the captioned writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.15754 of 2021
and the Court, while disposing of the said petitions by
the order dated 23.06.2022, has observed thus :-
"5. Learned AGP, upon instructions, has submitted that within five
months, the entire process with regard to refund of such amount to
the petitioner alongwith other similarly situated persons will be
completed and the same shall be paid to them.
6. This Court has perused the communication dated 22.06.2022,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/771/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
which clarifies that after receipt of the proposal by the concerned
department and after consultation with the Finance Department,
within a period of five months, such process shall be completed.
7. In view of the said communication and the aforesaid statement
made before this Court, the respondents are directed to complete the
entire process within a period of five months and accordingly,
refund the amount to the petitioners within the said period. The
petitioners have also prayed for interest on such amount. The
respondent authorities are directed to consider the said prayer with
regard to payment of interest as prayed in the writ petitions and also
pass appropriate orders in this regard. In case, any adverse order is
passed, it will be open for the petitioners to challenge the same by
undertaking appropriate proceeding."
8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid directions would reveal
that the respondents were directed to complete the entire
process within a period of five months after the
communication dated 22.06.2022 as mentioned in
Paragraph No.6.
9. In Paragraph No.5, learned AGP, upon instructions, has
submitted that within five months, the entire process,
with regard to the refund of such amount to the
petitioner alongwith other similarly situated persons, will
be completed and the same will be paid to them.
10. In Paragraph No.7, which pertains to interest on such
amount, the Court has issued directions to the respondent
authority to "consider" the said prayer with regard to
payment of interest as prayed for in the writ petition and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/771/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
also pass "appropriate orders" in this regard. It is
further clarified that in case any adverse order is passed,
it will be open for the petitioners to challenge the same
by undertaking appropriate proceeding.
11. Thus, the present contempt proceedings, which are
pressed, are premised on the observations recorded
hereinabove. So far as the amount of refund is
concerned, the same is already paid and deposited in the
account of the applicant, as mentioned in the affidavit.
With regard to the payment of interest, the Court, while
passing the order, has already directed the respondent
authorities to consider the same and pass appropriate
orders. It is further clarified that if the applicant is
aggrieved, it may avail remedy by filing appropriate
proceedings.
12. Today, the issue with regard to the DMF and the refund
of the same is raised by the applicant in the Additional
Affidavit. It is also in dispute that the applicant has
filed a writ petition, i.e. Special Civil Application
No.12691 of 2021 in this regard and the respondent
authorities have already issued a communication dated
11.04.2025 with regard to the said amount. It is
clarified in the said communication that since the amount
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/771/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
towards DMF of Rs.36,72,894.78 is a subject matter of
consideration before this Court, in the writ petitions, i.e.
Special Civil Application Nos.12690 of 2021 and 12691 of
2021, the interest on such amount of 15% is not yet
considered. Thus, this issue was never under
consideration when the aforementioned order was passed
in the captioned writ petition.
13. At this stage, we may note the observations of the
Supreme Court in the case of V. Senthur and Anr. vs. M.
Vijayakumar, IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission and Anr., (2021) 11 S.C.C. 566 where the
Supreme Court has held that while exercising contempt
jurisdiction, the Court will not travel beyond the original
judgment and direction; neither would it be permissible
for the court to issue any supplementary or incidental
directions, which are not to be found in the original
judgment. In paragraph 14, it was held as under :-
"14. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that in a contempt
jurisdiction, the court will not travel beyond the original judgment
and direction; neither would it be permissible for the court to issue
any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found
in the original judgment in Jhareshwar Prasad Paul and Another v.
Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others reported in (2002) 5 SCC 352,
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Limited and Others v. Chunilal
Nanda and Others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399, V.M. Manohar
Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju and Another reported in (2004) 13 SCC
610 and Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and
Natural Gas Coporation Limited and Others v. M. George
Ravishekaran and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373. The court is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/771/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
only concerned with the willful or deliberate non-compliance of the
directions issued in the original judgment and order."
14. We may also refer to another decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram vs. Staet of
Jharkhand and Ors., (2004) 7 S.C.C. 261 and in the said
decision, it was held as under :-
"While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot
traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In
other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what
should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It
cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional
direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review
jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of
contempt proceedings."
15. In light of the aforesaid observations of the Apex court
and in wake of the directions issued vide order dated
23.06.2022 and in view of the deposit of the amount as
mentioned hereinabove, we do not find any willful or
deliberate disobedience on part of the respondent
authorities. Hence, we close the contempt proceedings.
However, we clarify that if the applicant is aggrieved by
the subsequent action of the respondents or incase the
applicant is aggrieved by the payment of such amount, it
will be open for the applicant to file appropriate
proceedings before the appropriate forum.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE / DB # 4
