IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 910 of 2003 (M/B) 1. M/s Maharishi Steels Pvt. Limited Having its registered office at E-51, 52, 53, 57 and 58, Jasodharpur Industrial Area, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, Uttaranchal, Through its Director Bheem Singh. 2. Bheem Singh S/o Late Mukhtiyar Singh, Managing Director, M/s Maharishi Steels Pvt. Ltd., 70/1 Kambalwala Bagh, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. 3. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sri R.P. Sharma, Director, M/s Maharishi Steels Pvt. Ltd., R/o 207/1 Dwarikapuri, Muzaffarnagar. 4. Smt. Kusumlata W/o Sri Bheem Singh, R/o 70/1, Kambalwala Bagh, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. ........... Petitioners Versus 1. Uttaranchal Power Corporation. Ltd. Through Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Kotdwar Parui Garhwal Uttaranchal. 2. Collector, Pauri Garhwal, Uttaranchal. 3. Collector, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. 4. Tehsildar, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. ........... Respondents Petitioners counsel absent. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr. D.Barthwal, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Mr. N.C.Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondent no. 2. None for respondents 3 and 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Petitioners’ counsel absent. Mr. Alok Singh, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Mr. N.C.Gupta, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 2. None for respondents 3 and 4. 2 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “i. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 5.9.2003 (Annexure no. 4 and 5 to this writ petition) issued by the respondents; ii. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioners and not to enforce the impugned recovery citation against the person and private property and assets of the petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4; iii. Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the Circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice; iv. award cost of the present writ petition to the petitioners.” 3. On 26.09.2003, following order was passed in the writ petition: “ Learned counsel for the petitioners states that an amount of Rs. 39,00,000/- is due and payable to Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. He states that the factory is closed. He states that he has no money to pay. In this matter, the petitioners have challenged the demand made by the Uttaranchal Power Corporation on two grounds. It is argued that the demand is exorbitant. It is also argued that the Uttaranchal Power Corporation cannot proceed against the personal assets of the Directors; that they can proceed only against the immovable property of the Company. The Court made it clear to the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court is prepared to give instalments to the petitioners to pay the moneys. Learned counsel seeks time to take instructions. He states that the Power Corporation is free to take steps to dispose of the assets of the private limited company. In the circumstances following order is passed: ORDER (a) Stand over to 8.10.2003 to enable the petitioners to offer statement of instalments. (b) In the meantime, the respondent company is directed to sell assets of M/s Maharishi Steel Private Ltd. Company in accordance with law. However we make it clear that no steps will be taken for the time being against the residences of the Directors of the company. (c) In the meanwhile, we stay of arrest of the Directors of the company. 3 It is made clear that if the petitioners do not submit the statement of instalments, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ petition.” 4. In compliance of the above, order, the petitioners have not submitted the statement of instalments though a period of more than 2 ½ years has elapsed since the passing of the above order. As such, the last para of the above order, which reads as follows, now, has become operative: “It is made clear that if the petitioners do not submit the statement of instalments, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ petition.” 5. In this view of the matter, we are left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for non-compliance of the above order. 6. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 16.05.2006 16.05.2006 A