w IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT^ CONTEMPT CASE [C] Ho.W) /2011 Slngi®B^ APPLICANT: M/s Yasini Constrution Company, A- IV Class Contractor, Ali Manzil, Rani Road Korba.C.G. Through: its Managing Partner : Saiyyad Furqat Ali Yasini S/o' Late Haji Masru Hussain, aged 64 years, R/o House No. 285, Ward No.l, Behind Middle School, Yasini Manzil Chowk, Ramsagarpara ,Korba, Tahsil & District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS SCR NON-APPLICANTS/ CONTEMNORS: Mr. N. K. Aswal, presently posted as the Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Mr. B. L. Rai, Presently posted as the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department, Raipur,Chhattisgarh. Mr. R. C. Dwivedi, presently posted as the Chief Engineer, Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Project, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN RESPECT OF THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE, VIOLATION AND NON- COMPLAINCE OF THE ORDER DATED 10 JANUARY2011 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION (0 No. 5626/ 2010 BY THE HONOURABLE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. n » '% eaj "teK-" J /-^' '•-i- _fl<s iV< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (Cl N0.209/2011 APPLiCANT / M/s. Yasini Construction Company Versus fc. ii E i i%^s IB ^ii't. NON-APPLiCANTS Mr. N.K. Aswai and others QONTEIwPJ PfcTmON uNDER ARTiCLE "215 OF THE CONSiTUTiON OF INDIA READ WITH SECTiON 12 OF THE CONTEIV1PT OF GOURTS ACT, 1971 Present: - Shri Raikamai Singh, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11 of Juiy, 2011) Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wiliful disobedience of order dated 10/1/2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in 'w.P.(C') No.5626/10. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition was finaiiy dispQsed off with a direction to respondents to taxe certain steps towards payment of the amount claimed by the petitioner and it was further observed that if no decision has been taken to the effect as to what amount is to be admitted by the State Government, a decision shali be taken, as early as possible, and payment of admitted / undisputed amount shaii be made to the petitioner by 15/2/2011. However, no payments were made by 15/2/2011 , even thouah the Ctaim Committee in its meeting dated 29/1/2011 had resoived to recommend payment of Rs.20,23,823/-. As on r .^ 2 26/2/2011 (Annexure A/5), the State has issued a ietter to the Chief Engineer that the State has sanctioned Rs.20,23,823/- for payment to the petitioner. Learned counse! for the petitioner submits that this shows that the aforesaid amount is undisputed amount and therefore, payment ought to have been made within time stipulated but the Chier Enciineer tiil date, has not reieased the said amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a contempt petttion was earlier fiied, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14/06/2011, with liberty to file another contempt petition. But when no payments were made tili 29/0672011, this contempt petition has been nied. 4. The direction given ov the Division Bench of this Coun snows tn.at the respondents vv'ere directed to take a decision as to t'ne undisputed amount due to the petltioner and pay the same. It was also observed that if no decision has been taken to the effect as to what amount should be itted bv the State Government, a decision shall be taken as earlv as possibie and pavment of admitted / undlsputed amount shouid be made bv 15/2/2011. Content of ietter dated 2672/2011 shows that the Claim C'ommittee heid its meeting on 29/1/2011 and certain recommendations were made in favour of the petitioner on the basis of which, the State Government. issued a letter dated 26/2/2011 sanctioning reiease or Rs.20,23;S23/-. Though belatedly, tt appears that the State Government had taken a decision in the case of the petitioner and intimated the Chief Engineer that an amount of Rs.20,23,823/- has been sanctioned. This .^ order of the State Government was passed in purported comDiiance of the order passed by the Division Bench ofthis Court on 10/1/2011 in W.P.(C') No.5626/10. Therefore, the Chlef Ensineer ought to have taken steps for reiease of the amount, notwithstandina the fact that the time iimit of 15/2/2011 had already iapsed. The order or this Court intended that the undispuied / admitted amount should be reieased to the petitioner. Therefore, the Chief Engineer is- under an obiigation to immediately retease the undisputed amount to the petitloner, failing which, the Chlef Engineer may be made llabie for contempt of the orders and proceedings of this Court. Thouflh time limit prescribed by this Court for takinQ decision at the end of the State Government has already iapsed, finding that the State Government has beiatedly issued letter on 26/2/2011, l am not inclined to issue notice to respondent No.1, however at the same tlme, in case, claim of the petitioner, as sanctioned by the State Government is not reieased by the Chier Engineer, within a month rrom today, ihis Court may incfined to initiate contempt proceedinas. 5. Accordin.qlv, this petition is finaily disposed off at this stage. The petitioner may place a copy or the order of this Court before the Chief Engineer. If no payment is released within one month, this contempt petition may be revived. ' • Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Deepil