^' ^:a:r^^ w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR i e:: ^ S.B.: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Contemot Case (0 No. 298 of 2009 M/s A.S. Fun Private Limited Vs. Rajesh Govardhan, The Managing Director ORDER Post for Order:3Q/11/2010 Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge •^-"•--~'y^ I ft£fa> I % . ^^i' I ^,\J] HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA \^ PETITIQNER CONTEMNER RESPONDENT Contemot Case (0 No. 298 of 2009 M/s A.S. Fun Private Limited/Agrawal Bhawan, Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur- 495001~"(C.G.) through Director, Mr. Ashok Kumar Agrawal Versus Rajesh Govardhan, The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandari, Raipur CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Koshy & Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocates for the respondent. ORDER (30.11.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) The petitioner has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondent for willful default in compliance of order dated 7th ofNovember, 2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of2008. (2) The schedule land of W.P.(C) No. 6199/2008 was allotted to the petitioner by the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short 'CSIDC) on certain terms and conditions on 5.9.2008. The earlier allottee of this land was M/s Grand Motors, "~'R ^; ^sk [O^ Contempt Case (0 No. 298 of2009 Bilaspur, respondent No.2 in the writ petition. Pursuant to the letter of intent dated 9.9.2008, the petitioner complied with all the requirements and deposited the requisite amount. The case of the petitioner was pending consideration before the Managing Director, CSIDC. According to the petitioner, no action was being taken by the said authority. The petitioner then made two representations on 8.10.2008 8& 21.10.2008 (Annexures- P/7 & P/8 in the writ-petition). According to the petitioner, when nothing was done till a long period, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 6199/2008 on 4.11.2008 for the following relief(s):- <((a) Direction to the Management of C.SJ.D.C. for execution of the lease deed. (b) Further direction to the Management of C.S.I.D.C. for handing over th,e peaceful vacant possession of the land measuring 2.42 acres at Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Bilaspur/' (3) On 7.11.2008 the writ petition was disposed of with the direction to CSIDC to consider the above two representations of the petitioner within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, in accordance with law, on its own merits. A liberty was also reser^ed to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the concerned authorities, if so advised, for stopping of alleged construction by respondent No.2, M/s Grand Motors on the petition schedule land. The contents of the representation dated 8.10.2008 would show that it was made by the petitioner to the Managing Director for execution of the lease deed of the schedule land i.e. 2.42 acres allotted to the petitioner. The second representation dated 21.10.2008 was made by the petitioner to the Managing Director for taking immediate steps to stop the construction activities taken by M/s Grand Motors whose lease deed was cancelled on 8.9.2008. It is alleged by the petitioner that these ^' ^ ^ \0^ ^. Contempt Case (Q No. 298 of 2009 two representations were notconsidered in time, therefore, it amounts to willful disobedience of the order dated 7.11.2008. (4) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent. (5) Respondent has contended that after passing of the order dated 7.11.2008, the Management of CSIDC filed M.C.C. No. 394/2008 seeking 2 weeks time for compliance of the direction contained in order dated 7.11.2008 passed in the writ petition. The M.C.C. was allowed and vide order dated 3.12.2008 this Court granted 2 weeks time to the respondents for considering the representation of the petitioner. It is contended that on 19.12.2008 a decision was taken by the Management to execute lease deed in favour of the petitioner. On 22.12.2008, the Management of CSIDC passed an order of allotment and a lease deed was also executed in favour of the petitioner. The copies of allotment order and lease deed are filed as Annexures- R/l 8s R/2. It is further contended that on 23.12.2008, the Management of CSIDC also issued a letter to M/s Grand Motors to stop its illegal construction immediately. The copy of letter has been filed as Annexure-R/3. Thereafter on 29.12.2008, M/s Grand Motors, earlier allottee of the disputed land, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. State Government under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Industries (Allotment of shed, plots and lands) Rules, 1974 for setting aside the order of termination of allotment of land, earlier granted in their favour. The respondent has further contended that the said appeal is pending before the concerned authority. The respondent has also contended that there is a circular of State Government dated 7.1.1991 (Annexure-R/5) which sh"ows that if any appeal is preferred against the cancellation of land/shed allotment then pending appeal that land/shed should not i/ f. '%-. ^ ^1-.. '^ -3/ ^o^ Contempt Case fQ No. 298 of2009 be allotted to any other person till the appeal is finally decided. The respondent on 9.2.2009 has also intimated this fact to the petitioner that the possession of the land cannot be granted on account of pending appeal before the Appellate Authority by memo Annexure-R/6. The CSIDC has also received notice from the Appellate Authority on 6.3.2009. After this M.C.C. No. 140 was again filed before the High Court for extension of time and by^an order dated 27th of April, 2009, 4 weeks time from the said date was granted to the CSIDC to comply with the order dated 7.11.2008. The contention of the respondent is that in the above manner, there is sufficient compliance of the order dated 7.11.2008 by the respondent/CSIDC, therefore, the proceedings of contempt may be drawn. (6) Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the order dated 7.11.2008 was not complied by the respondent, therefore, the respondent is liable for punishment under contempt. He referred to the orders passed by this Court and the contents of representations dated 8.10.2008 8& 21.10.2008. (7) On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Koshy 8s Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, opposed these arguments. They took me through various documents flled alongwith reply and contended that there is substantial compliance of the order dated 7.11.2008, therefore, the petition filed for initiation of contempt against the respondent be dismissed and the rule issued be discharged. (8) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe contempt petition. ^< ...•>:?" Contempt Case (C) No. 298 of 2009 (9) Admittedly, by order dated 7th November, 2008 (Annexure-P/1) the respondent/CSIDC was directed to consider the two representations of the petitioner i.e. representation dated 8.10.2008 & 21.10.2008. In representation dated 8.10.2008, the petition had requested for execution of the lease deed and to give possession of the allotted land; and in representation dated 21.10.2008, the petitioner had requested to take immediate steps/action to stap the construction activities by M/s Grand Motors, otherwise the consequences arising from such illegal construction will be entirely to the account and responsibility of M/s Grand Motors, Bilaspur. The time for compliance of the order dated 7.11.2008 was extended for 2 weeks vide order dated 3rd December, 2008 passed in M.C.C. No. 394/2008. Thereafter on 22.12.2008, the C8IDC passed the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner and lease deed dated 22.12.2008 was also executed. The copies ofallotment order and lease deed have been filed as Annexure-R/1 & R/2. This shows the bonafides of the respondent that firstly the respondent got the time extended by this Court, and thereafter allotted the land and executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. About stopping of illegal construction, it appears, that on 23.12.2008, the Management of CSIDC issued a letter to M/s Grand Motors to stop their illegal construction immediately. This shows that the respondent had made efforts from their end to stop the illegal construction, but, M/s Grand Motors preferred statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority which remained pending and issue of allotment as also delivery of possession became subjudice before the Appellate Authority. In circular dated 7.1.1991, it has been directed that if the allotment of the shed/plot is cancelled and the allottee has filed an appeal, then the concerned plot 6 Contempt Case (C) No. 298 of2009 ^ k or shed shall not be allotted to any other person till the final decision of the appeal. (10) In the present case, the respondent authority has already allotted the land to the petitioner and the lease deed has also been executed and they have also taken necessary steps to stop illegal construction by earlier allottee M/s Grand Motors. However, on account of pendency of the statutory appeal the possession of the plot has not been handed over to the petitioner. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I fmd that as per order dated 7.11.2008, the CSIDC has considered the two representations of the petitioner and there appears to be substantial compliance of the order dated 7.11.2008. The steps taken by the respondent and the repeated approach of CSIDC to this Court also shows the bonafldes of the respondent and CSIDC and their serious concerned about compliance of the order passed by this Court. (11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find present to be a case of willful default in compliance of order dated 7.11.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6199/2008. (12) The petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The rule issued against respondent stands discharged. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti