Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Shahid Iqbal Choudhary Commissioner vs M/S Aditya Tiles & Ors on 3 February, 2025
Sr. No. 19
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
ATJAMMU
THROUGH VC
LPA No. 110/2024
Shahid Iqbal Choudhary Commissioner ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Secretary to Government Rural Development
Department & Ors.
Through: Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
Vs.
M/S Aditya Tiles & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE (through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
ORDER
03.02.2025
Per Atul Sreedharan-J (Oral):
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants herein,
challenging two orders dated 19.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in CCP(S) No. 101/2021, arising out of WP(C)
No. 1971/2020. The order that was sought to be enforced was passed by
the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.12.2020.
2. The learned Writ Court disposed of the petition pending before it
by directing the appellants herein to accord consideration to the claim of
the petitioner for the release of the withheld payment of Rs. 73,17,456/-
(Seventy-Three Lakh, Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Six)
which accrued in favour of the respondents herein on account of supply
of Interlocking Tiles to the respondents within a period of 08 weeks'
from the date of passing of the order by the Writ Court, unless there
were any legal impediments.
3. It is relevant to mention here that in the writ petition, the
respondents before this Court had prayed for a direction to the
appellants herein to release the withheld payment of Rs. 73,17,456/- due
to the respondents herein for the supply of Interlocking Tiles and also a
second prayer to pay interest @ 18% per annum towards the
outstanding amount mentioned hereinabove, till the whole realization of
the outstanding amount.
4. Though there was no order passed as far as the interest aspect is
concerned, the learned Writ Court did direct the appellants herein to
accord consideration to the claim of the respondents herein as already
mentioned hereinabove. When the said order was not complied with, the
respondents herein filed the aforementioned contempt petition before
the learned Single Judge, in which the orders dated 19.04.2024 and
24.04.2024 were passed.
5. Briefly referring to the said orders, it appears that vide order
dated 19.04.2024, the compliance report which was filed before the
learned Single Judge hearing the contempt petition was produced before
the Court but the same was yet to be filed and that the compliance
report appeared to be contrary to earlier compliance report filed by the
appellants herein and, therefore, a week's time was granted to the
learned counsel for the contemnors to file a fresh compliance report
strictly in consonance with the judgment passed by the learned Writ
Court.
6. Thereafter, on 24.04.2024, the learned Single Judge hearing the
contempt case referred to the earlier order dated 19.04.2024, whereby
the appellants before this Court were directed to file the compliance
report strictly in terms of the judgment passed by the learned Writ court.
In other words, to consider the release of Rs. 73,17,456/-. Instead of
complying with the order of the learned Writ Court, the order dated
24.04.2024 passed in CCP (S) No. 101/2021, reveals that an application
was filed in that case by the appellants herein for exemption of the
contemnor No. 1-Commissioner/Secretary Rural Development
Department and Panchayati Raj, on the ground that he had been deputed
as an Election Observer in Mysore. The learned Single Judge hearing
the contempt case allowed the application by imposing of cost of Rs.
20,000/- upon the contemnors for not filing the compliance report and
gave the liberty to file the compliance report positively by or before the
next date of hearing, failing which, the contemnors other than the
contemnors 3 & 4 in the contempt petition were directed to remain
present before the Contempt Court.
7. These are the two orders that have been challenged before this
Court in the present LPA. The said two orders do not transcend the
original order passed by the learned Writ Court which was a condition
precedent before the appellants could have challenged an order passed
by a Court hearing a contempt case. The said orders only reject the
compliance report and had directed appellants herein to file a fresh
compliance report. Such orders cannot by any stretch of imagination be
considered as overreaching or going beyond the order passed by the
learned Writ Court.
8. Under the circumstances, this Court holds that the filing of the
writ appeal itself was frivolous and was not maintainable and, therefore,
the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the
contemnors which shall be paid to the respondents in this appeal within
a period of 10 days from the date of this order, failing which, the
respondents shall be at liberty to initiate a fresh contempt proceedings
against the appellants herein for the violation of this order passed today.
9. Interim direction, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated.
(RAJESH SEKHRI) (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
03.02.2025
ARIF
