IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP. No. 2137 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.8.2011. Hakam Singh & others --Petitioners Versus Sham Lal, President and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This contempt petition has been filed for violation of the judgement of this Court dated 24.8.2010 passed in CWP No. 19714 of 2006, wherein it has been held that the inquiry dated 2.5.2003 is illegal and no recovery could be made on that basis. While quashing the impugned orders of recoveries the Hon'ble Court, however, permitted the respondents no.4 & 5 i.e. Municipal Committee Gidderbaha, Distt. Muktsar, to enforce the recoveries under such arrangement or notification subsequent to the one, which has been quashed. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the quashing of the recoveries the respondents have retained the amount recovered from the petitioners and even the same has not been adjusted for future recoveries, if any, under law. It is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that subsequent to the quashed notification dated 2.5.2003 the Municipal Committee issued another notification dated 18.9.2009 (Annexure R-1/1). It is further submitted that this notification was issued by adopting the due procedure of law and the respondents are entitled to effect recoveries on COCP. No. 2137 of 2010 -2- account of water and severage charges pursuant to the aforesaid notification issued in the year 2009. No exception can be accepted on the basis of submissions made by the respondents, however, respondents are not entitled to retain the amount recovered by them w.e.f. 2.5.2003 to 18.9.2009. Admittedly, no such amount has been refunded to the petitioners. There is nothing in the reply even to indicate that the amount recovered from the petitioners for the aforesaid charges has been adjusted against the tax liability of the petitioners pursuant to the notification dated 18.9.2009. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Municipal Committee and the respondents in the contempt petition undertake to adjust the amount recovered from the petitioners during the period w.e.f. 2.5.2003 to 18.9.2009 for any tax liability of the petitioners w.e.f. 18.9.2009 onwards till the amount is appropriately adjusted. In view of the statement suffered by the respondents, these contempt proceedings are dropped. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.8.2011. lucky