HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No.100 of 2010 Bhalotia Enterprises, EE-28, Jyangra Dakshin Math, Gitanjali Apartments, Baguihati, Kolkata (W.B.) through its proprietor, Sri Prashant Bhalotia …Petitioner Versus S. Ramaswamy & others … Respondents Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Vipul Sharma, Advocate present for the respondents. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. (Misc. Application No.3620 of 2010) (Misc. Application No.3621 of 2010) (Misc. Application No.3619 of 2010) Heard. Applications are allowed. Counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 are taken on record. Contempt Petition No.100 of 2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner filed writ petition no.1047 (M/S) of 2007 for direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to transfer the lease of plot no.81, 82 of Sector 7, I.I.E. Ranipur, Haridwar after charging the requisite ‘transfer fee’ as per Clause 7.1 of the lease deed dated 10.01.2006. A writ of certiorari was also prayed in the writ petition for quashing the order no.1574 dated 27.03.2006 and order dated 03.11.2006 2 passed by the respondents. The writ petition was dismissed on 31.12.2009. However, it was observed in the judgment that in case, if the petitioner is reluctant to accept the proposal of respondents, he may claim the cost of the plot compared with the circle rate of the area, after surrendering the plot in favour of the respondents, and may also claim for other investments incurred by him, which may be assessed by any specialist. A certified copy of the order was served on the respondents. Managing Director of SIDCUL vide office order dated 11.05.2010 informed that since allottee was not in a position to establish the industry due to financial problems and also that the allottee has shifted its base to Kolkata, the Corporation decided to refund the deposited amount. Accordingly, the cheque was issued for Rs.419,949 on 02.11.2006, but the same was not accepted by the allottee and he refunded back the amount on 08.12.2006. The allottee further approached the Corporation vide his letter dated 18.02.2010 for buy-back of the Plot at the current price i.e. 3812.50 per sqmt. The request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that Corporation has no such policy of buy- back or surrender. The petitioner again approached the Managing Director on 15.03.2010 asking him to inform the petitioner the date when to come to his office for the settlement of the issue by surrendering the plot. Deputy General Manager (Tech.) replied the petitioner on 10.05.2010 informing the petitioner that the Corporation at present has no such policy of buy-back or surrender. It is apparent that the claim of the petitioner for the plot at circle rate of the area was rejected by the Corporation. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court in its observation gave option to the petitioner to surrender the plot in question to get the circle rate. He further submitted that observation made by the Court in its judgment dated 31.12.2009 is binding. The respondents by declining the claim of the petitioner have committed contempt of this Court’s order dated 31.12.2009. Mr L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate on the other hand submitted that neither there was any prayer in the writ petition for surrender of plot nor there was any prayer for a direction to the Corporation to make payment to the petitioner at the circle rate, nor there was any specific order passed by the Court in the writ petition asking the SIDCUL to make payment of the plot to the petitioner at the circle rate of the area. Even such issue was also not framed. He further submitted that since petition was dismissed and further order has been passed by the respondents, it is open for the petitioner to challenge that order. It is true that while dismissing the writ petition, observation was made by the Court giving liberty to the petitioner to claim the cost of the plot compared with the circle rate of the area, after surrendering the plot in favour of the respondents but this was a simple observation with a understanding that the respondents will consider his claim for the same. Infact there was no mandamus to the respondents for making payment of the land to the petitioner at the circle rate of the area. Neither any issue was framed nor same was 4 decided and it was left open for the respondents to decide the same in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the respondents have not committed contempt of this Court’s order dated 31.12.2009. As observed above that such issue has not been decided by the Court while deciding the writ petition, it is open for the petitioner to file fresh petition. Contempt petition is dismissed. Contempt notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. (V.K.Bist. J,) 15.06.2011 Arti 5