MCA/3178/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 3178 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9257 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MAHIJI DEVJI SOLANKI & 31 - Applicant(s) Versus MR. TOPNO, DISTRICT COLLECTOR & 4 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RAJESH P MANKAD for Applicant(s) : 1 - 32. MR MAULIK NANAVATI, AGP for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. MR HS MUNSHAW for Opponent(s) : 3, NOTICE UNSERVED for Opponent(s) : 4 - 5. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 28/02/2008 MCA/3178/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1. The applicants herein, who were original petitioners in Special Civil Application No.9257 of 2007, have moved this petition praying for holding the respondents guilty of willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 9.4.2007 made by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9257 of 2007. 2. The case of the applicants is that the applicants were employees of respondent No.4 – Unit, named “P.P. Shroff Ceramics, Post Padra, District Vadodara, which was run by respondent No.5 Kishorbhai Girdharbhai Thakkar. That certain payments in the form of wages became due from respondent Nos.4 & 5 in favour of the applicants and accordingly, after having taken out appropriate proceeding, a Recovery Certificate was issued on 26.5.2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,11,538/-. The respondent No.1 Authority was required to comply with the said Recovery Certificate as arrears of land revenue. According to the applicants as the respondent No.1 was not executing Recovery Certificate this Court was moved by way of Special Civil Application No.9257 of 2007 wherein, vide Order dated 9.4.2007, direction was issued to respondent No.1 to effect recovery and deposit the amount within a period of 3 months from the MCA/3178/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT date of receipt of copy of the Order. After the applicants had called upon respondent No.1 to do the needful, and according to the applicants on failure of the respondent No.1 – Authority, this Court was moved by way of present petition. Upon Notice having been issued the respondent – Authority has put appearance and tendered Affidavit in Reply of respondent No.3 Authority. However, on behalf of respondent No.1 Authority it is submitted that upon inquiry it has been found that there is no property available in the name of either respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 and this fact was intimated to the applicants - petitioners vide communication dated 4.2.2008, issued by the Mamlatdar, Padra. 3. On behalf of the applicants – petitioners attention is invited to communication dated 7.2.2008 whereunder it is stated that there are two properties, one standing in the name of Shrimati Shardaben, mother of respondent No.5 and the other standing in the name of one Pravinbhai, brother of respondent No.5. Reliance has also been placed on recovery proceedings undertaken by Debts Recovery Tribunal, which have been annexed with the Affidavit in Rejoinder to submit that the respondents – Authorities are not serious about effecting recovery despite the fact that various proceedings are being pursued by Indian Overseas Bank before Debts Recovery Tribunal. MCA/3178/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT 4. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and after going through the documents available on record it is apparent that there is no evidence to dislodge the written statement made by Mamlatdar, Padra that there is no property available for effecting recovery in so far as either respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 is concerned. The recovery proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal, on which reliance has been placed, pertained to a different entity by the name of M/s. Pragjibhai Purshottambhai Shroff and 3 others, one of them being respondent No.5. Except for the name of respondent No.5, appearing as certified debtor in the said proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal, there is no other evidence to link either respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 with the property referred to in the recovery proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal. Similarly, in so far as properties of the mother and the brother of respondent No.5 are concerned, the respondent No.1 – Authority cannot be expected to effect recovery from the properties of persons other than the respondents No.4 & 5 against whom recovery Certificate has been issued, as there is no evidence to show firstly, that either the mother or the brother are in any way liable to discharge the liability of either respondent No.4 or respondent No.5, and secondly, the properties in question MCA/3178/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT (referred to in communication dated 7.2.2008) are jointly owned by either respondent No.4 or respondent No.5, in any manner whatsoever. 5. In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that the allegation regarding respondents Authorities acting willfully in defiance of the order made by this Court cannot be sustained and no contempt is committed by respondents – Authorities so as to take any action against them. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (D.A.MEHTA, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED,J.) sas