IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.230 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 05.02.2008 Holy Mother Edu.Society ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate vs. Sh.Deepak Chopra etc. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 26.2.2005 as well as the final order dated July 6, 2006 passed by this Court in C.W.P.No.3065 of 2005. A brief reference to the facts may be noted. The respondent-Authorities raised a bill against the petitioner thereby asking it to deposit a sum of Rs.3,86,875/- as development charges for power supply. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed C.W.P.No.3065 of 2005 in which while issuing notice of motion, ad interim stay regarding recovery of sundry charges was passed by this Court. Thereafter, the writ petition along with some other connected cases was disposed of on July 6, 2006 on the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-Authorities, in terms whereof the impugned notices were withdrawn. The writ petition was C.O.C.P. No.230 of 2007 -2- accordingly disposed of with an observation that “the sundry charges levied by the Nigam qua which a demand has been raised against the petitioners shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. However, Nigam would be at liberty to initiate such proceedings and take such action as may be available to the Nigam in accordance with law after following principles of natural justice.” It appears that in terms of the statement made before this Court, the respondent-Authorities issued a bill (Annexure P-6) and vide an order dated 8.11.2006 (Annexure R-2) also informed the petitioner that the development charges of Rs.3,86,875/- which were initially demanded from it, have now been “increased to Rs.6,61,682/- along with surcharge.” Realizing that this was not the manner in which the statement made before this Court or the directions to observe the principles of natural justice could be complied with, the above-stated demand notice has been subsequently withdrawn. From the documents on record, it, thus, appears that the respondents have not been able to appreciate the import of the order dated July 6, 2006 passed by this Court whereby liberty was granted to them to raise a fresh demand, however, after following the principles of natural justice. The only recourse now left with the respondents is; firstly to issue a self-speaking show cause notice to the petitioner with details of the alleged sundry charges as also the justification for imposition thereof. Some reasonable period has to be granted to the petitioner to contest the respondents' claim by submitting its reply to the notice and thereafter only, C.O.C.P. No.230 of 2007 -3- the respondents can pass a reasoned order followed by the demand bill. Unless such a procedure is adopted by them, the recovery of alleged sundry charges cannot be affected from the petitioner. With these clarificatory directions, this contempt petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. February 05, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE