Uttarakhand High Court
Between vs State Of on 11 January, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA
Contempt Petition No. 87 of 2017
BETWEEN:
Gajendra Singh Kandiyal s/o Shri Kalyan Singh r/o
Village Dhalwala Patti Dhamandasyu Tehsil Narendra
Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal
....Petitioner
(By Sri Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate)
AND:
Shri Dinesh Kumar Bijalwan S/o Shri Patiram,
Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works
Department, Lansdown, District Pauri Garhwal.
.....Respondent
(By Sri Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State
JUDGEMENT
The petitioner had filed this contempt petition on
28.03.2017, seeking compliance of the judgment
dated 30.11.2016, as was passed by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3195 of
2016, Gajendra Singh Kandiyal Vs. State of
Uttarakhand & others.
2. The judgement dated 30.11.2016, which has
been sought to be enforced in the present contempt
petition, contained the following directions:-
"6. Considering the submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the papers available on record, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent authorities to consider the request of
the petitioner for payment regarding work done by
him, which is not disputed and duly certified by the
competent person/authority and make payment to
the petitioner expeditiously. So far payment
relating to the work, which is disputed, the
petitioner can avail appropriate remedy available to
him under the law."
3. The direction given therein was that the
respondent, was to consider the request of the
petitioner for the payment of charges, in relation to
the work, which was already done by the petitioner
and which was not a disputed fact in the writ petition.
4. On this contempt petition, notices were issued to
the respondent on 29.03.2017, and when the
compliance was not made and matter was taken up
on 31.12.2020, Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing
Counsel, was granted ten days' time to complete his
instructions and to make a statement on the next
date of listing.
5. Today, when the contempt was taken up, Mr.
Pradeep Hairiya, the learned Standing Counsel, at the
Bar, had produced the letter being letter No. 55/22
AC dated 05.01.2021, which is a communication
which was made by the Executive Engineer of Sub
Division, Public Works Department, Lansdown; to the
office of the Chief Standing Counsel, whereby in para
3, they have made a statement that in pursuance to
the Agreement No. 9/EE dated 18.05.2007, the
petitioner had been remitted an amount of Rs.
16,57,341/-, which commensurate 90% of the
amount, due to be paid to the petitioner. Relevant
para No. 3 of the letter dated 05.01.2021, reads as
under:-
**3- vuqcU/k la0 [email protected] fn- 18-05-2007 jkT; ;kstuk ds vUrZxr
xS.M[kky&<kWlh eks0 ekxZ ds fdeh0 9 esa igkM+ dVku dk dk;Z dk
vuqcU/k : 1657341-00 xfBr gSA vuqcU/k ds lkis{k yxHkx 90
izfr"kr Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA mDr eks0ekxZ ij Bsdsnkj }kjk ekudksa
ds vuq:i dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gSA vf/kd dh x;h Hkqxrku dh
/kujkf"k dh olwyh dh tkuh gSA**
6. As far as the payment/refund of the balance
10% amount is concerned, for the said amount, the
respondent has yet again written a letter being letter
No. 05/22AC dated 02.01.2021, wherein it has been
observed that; for the purposes of refund of 10%
security amount, the petitioner had been asked to
approach the respondent and file an appropriate
application for its refund and once petitioner does so,
they will refund the amount in question. Relevant
para No. 2 of letter dated 02.01.2021 is quoted
hereunder:-
**2- vuqcU/k la0 [email protected] fn- 14-03-2008 ,oa vuqcU/k la0
[email protected] fn- 26-12-2006 ,oa vuqcU/k la0 [email protected] fn- 14-12-2008
,oa vuqcU/k la0 [email protected] fn- 23-11-2012 dh 10 izfr"kr /kjksgj
/kujkf"k Refund gsrq bl dk;kZy; dks vkosnu i= izsf'kr djsa]
vkosnu i= izsf'kr djus ds mijkUr vko";d dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA**
7. In view of the aforesaid contentions, raised in
the two correspondences, referred above, the
contempt petition is closed. The notice issued to the
respondent is hereby discharged. However, it is made
clear that if the petitioner approaches the respondent
within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of
the certified copy of this order, the respondent would
ensure to remit the balance 10% security amount,
which is shown to have been reflected in para 2 of the
correspondence dated 02.01.2021, and they will be
ensuring its remittance within the period of ten days
thereafter.
8. The communications given by the learned
Standing Counsel is taken on record and is made as
part of the contempt petition.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Mahinder/
