Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajat Thakur vs Preet Pal on 23 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.432 of 2025
Date of decision: 23.05.2025
Rajat Thakur. ...Petitioner.
Versus
Preet Pal. ...Respondent.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The petitioner instituted Civil Writ Petition
No.7282 of 2024. In the aforesaid writ petition, CMP No.552
of 2025 was moved by the respondents-State, which was
disposed of on 09.01.2025 by the Hon'ble Division Bench as
under:-
On 20.11.2024, this Court passed the following
orders:-
"Heard. The petitioner through his authorized
representative had addressed a communication to the
Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Revenue District, Nurpur,
which reads as under:-
"To
The Deputy Commissioner Excise,
RD, Nurpur.
Subject: To provide calculation of arrear in respect of Unit
No.3 &4 for the year 23-24.
Sir,
It is requested that he may please be
provided calculation sheet/ details of the arrear of in
respect of unit No.3 & 4. So as to enable us totally the
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
same with our record. The department calculation viz-a-viz
is as under:-
Sr. No. Dues as per our Dues as per Variation
record Dept.
Unit No.3 ₹1,50,98,608/- ₹2,17,82,755/- ₹66,83,547/-
Unit No.4 ₹4,65,51,939/- ₹6,75,53,561/- ₹2,10,01,622/-
The department may please provide the same
before the next date of hearing on Hon'ble High Court.
Thanking you,
Sd/-
Shashi Kant Sharma
Authorised representative to Rajat Thakur."
Before the petitioner is heard in the matter,
let him deposit the admitted dues as per the record i.e.
₹1,50,98,608/- ₹1,50,98,608/- 1,50,98,608/- and
4,65,51,939/-.
List thereafter."
2. The State has filed this application for bringing on
record certain documents, paras 1 and 2 thereof read as
under:-
"1. That the above cited writ petition was listed before
this Hon'ble Court on 20.11.2024 when this Hon'ble Court
was pleased to direct the non-applicant/ respondent to
deposit the admitted dues as per the record i.e.
1,50,98,608/- and 4,65,51,939/-. The ₹1,50,98,608/-
₹1,50,98,608/- relevant portion of order dated 20.11.2024
read as under:-
"Before the petitioner is heard in the matter, let him
deposit the admitted dues as per the record i.e.
1,50,98,608/- 1,50,98,608/- and ₹1,50,98,608/-
4,65,51,939/-, 1,50,98,608/- List thereafter."
2. That it is submitted that applicant/ respondent No.3
vide letter dated 23.11.2024 (annexure R-1 (colly.)
intimated that the non-applicant/ petitioner has failed to
comply with the directions of this Hon'ble Court and has
not deposited the aforesaid amount even after an elapse of
more than one month."
3. In addition thereto, the respondents have placed on
record instructions dated 09.01.2025 which go to indicate
that the petitioner has not deposited the admitted amount
despite having adequate source. It shall be apt to reproduce
the contents of the letter dated 09.01.2025 text whereof
reads as under:-
"Sir,
On the subject cited above, it is submitted that in
compliance to the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh
order passed in CWP No.7282 of 2024 in the matter of
Rajat Thakur V/s State of H.P. and others, it is submitted
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
that M/s Rajat Thakur did not deposit amount of Rs.6.15
Crore till 06.01.2025.
1. On 07th January at about 5 PM a bank employee of
ICICI bank Jassur has submitted tow bank draft
amounting to Rs10 Laac and 05 Lac total amounting to
Rs.15 Lac.
2. Sh. Rajat Thakur has received payment of Rs. More than
04 Crore from M/s BBMP Talwara before two months.
3. Sh. Rajat Thakur has running 04 Petrol Pumps ( on his
own name or on the name of his wife) in Kangra District.
4. Sh. Rajat Thakur owing more than 150 trucks, tippers
etc.
5. Sh. Rajat Thkaur is the owner of big running Hotel
namely ELIOT Exotica at Dharamshala.
6. Sh. Rajat Thakur has 04 bitumin mixer plants in Kangra
district.
7. He has been doing road works at Fetahpur Talwara
road, Dehra Division, Jawala Ji Division and in Kotla
Behad division in joint venture with other contractors total
works in progress is about 08 crore in different divisions in
Kangra District.
This for your kind information and further necessary
action, please."
4. In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to
allow the application by taking on record additional
documents filed by the respondents and at the same time
direct the petitioner/ non-applicant to comply with the order
dated 20.11.2024 by 07.02.2025, failing which, it shall be
open for the respondents to take coercive steps against the
petitioner for recovery of the amount. Application stands
disposed of."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
aforesaid order was primarily based upon contents of
letter/instructions dated 09.01.2025 placed on record by the
respondents. That the information supplied by the
respondents in the aforesaid letter was incorrect and
misleading, hence, contempt is made out against the
respondents for abusing the process of the Court.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
3. To a query of the Court as to whether the
petitioner has brought the facts now alleged in the contempt
petition before the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench,
which is seized of the main matter, the answer was in the
affirmative. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner had
moved CMP No.3058 of 2025 for recalling the order dated
09.01.2025 passed in CMP No.552 of 2025 in CWP No.7282
of 2024 on the grounds that information supplied in the
letter/instructions dated 09.01.2025 was factually wrong
and misleading, but the Hon'ble Court dismissed the
application on 20.03.2023. Copy of the order dated
20.03.2025 has been placed on record. In fact, learned
counsel also apprised that the main writ petition filed by the
petitioner (CWP No.7282 of 2024) has also been dismissed on
24.04.2025 for want of compliance on the part of petitioner.
4. Once the Hon'ble Division Bench, which passed
the order dated 09.01.2025, has not recalled its order and
the application of the petitioner for recalling the afore order,
moved on the same ground as has been urged in this
contempt petition, stands dismissed, there arises no
occasion to issue notice to the respondents of this contempt
petition. Neither any contempt nor the case of abuse of
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
process of the Court is made out. Accordingly, the present
contempt petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
23rd May, 2025 Judge
(Pardeep)
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
