Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2019 of 2012 ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Pandey S/O Sri Sarjug Prasad Pandey R/O Jamal Road, Near Post Office Gali, Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2.Sudhir Kumar, The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3.Alok Chaturvedi, The Resident Commissioner, Bihar Bhawan, 5, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi 4. Bipin Kumar Sinha, The Resident Engineer, Bihar Bhawan, 5, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi .... .... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad and Tej Bahadur Roy, Advocates For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Yashwant Kumar Chaman, A.C. to S.C.25 ====================================================== P R E S E N T : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN
Decision
O R D E R 6 23-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the parties. 2. This M.J.C. petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for their alleged wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 05.01.2012, by which C.W.J.C. No. 16652 of 2011 was disposed of with following observations/directions :- “4.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the Patna High Court MJC No.2019 of 2012 (6) dt.23-01-2013 Page 6 petitioner to approach the Resident Commissioner (respondent no. 3) along with an application giving details of the dues which according to the petitioner is admitted. If such an application is filed by the petitioner within 15 days along with a copy of this order, the said authority shall decide the same in accordance with law by a speaking order within three months thereafter and shall immediately pay the entire admitted dues. However, if any amount or interest thereon is not found admitted and payable in the said order of the authority the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same before an appropriate forum.” 3. It is not in dispute that after the said order the petitioner filed an application before the Resident Commissioner, Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi on 16.01.2012 i.e. within the time granted by this Court. It further transpires that thereafter on 23.01.2012, the Resident Commissioner wrote a letter to the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, for his comment with respect to the enquiry report dated 23.03.2011 and, thereafter, the said Secretary replied to the Resident Commissioner on 27.01.2012 giving the stand of the Department on the said enquiry report. Thereafter, the Resident Commissioner rejected the application of the petitioner on 10.04.2012 i.e. within the stipulated time. 4. The claim of the petitioner is that the Resident Commissioner has not applied his independent mind while deciding the matter although the order of this Court dated Patna High Court MJC No.2019 of 2012 (6) dt.23-01-2013 Page 6 05.01.2012 was that he should pass a speaking and reasoned order, but the Resident Commissioner only relied upon the views and directions of the Department and in view thereof rejected the genuine claim of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that before passing of the said order dated 10.04.2012, the petitioner’s firm had been blacklisted by the Department on 27.03.2012, which was challenged by the petitioner’s firm vide C.W.J.C. No. 7666 of 2012 and the same was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2012 as follows :- “In the circumstances, even if order is set aside on the ground of non-application of mind by him, no useful purpose will be served by remitting the matter back to him. As such the writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Public Works Tribunal which is directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law and decide the same as early as possible.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon paragraphs 19 to 22 of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Ram Vilas Mishra vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1993 (1) P.L.J.R. 437, in which it was said that in the interest of justice this Court can give appropriate directions in contempt proceedings also. Hence, he argued that this is a fit case, in which the Resident Commissioner can be directed to pass a Patna High Court MJC No.2019 of 2012 (6) dt.23-01-2013 Page 6 fresh speaking order applying his mind independently to the pleadings and materials produced by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the order of this Court has been fully complied by the concerned authorities within the time prescribed in the said order, there is no occasion for continuing this M.J.C. case, which is fit to be dismissed. 8. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that this Court had directed the Resident Commissioner to decide the application of the petitioner by a speaking order within three months of its filing. The petitioner had filed his application on 16.01.2012 and the Resident Commissioner had passed order on that application on 10.04.2012, which is well within the time prescribed by this Court. 9. From a bare perusal of the letter of the Resident Commissioner dated 23.01.2012 and letter of the Secretary of the Department dated 27.01.2012 as well as from the order of the Resident Commissioner dated 10.04.2012, it is quite apparent that there was an enquiry report dated 23.03.2011 and before passing the order as per the direction of this Court, the Resident Patna High Court MJC No.2019 of 2012 (6) dt.23-01-2013 Page 6 Commissioner had merely sought the view of the Department on the said report, whereafter the department had provided its view. 10. So far the order of the Resident Commissioner dated 10.04.2012 is concerned, it is a well-considered and speaking order and hence the order of this Court having been complied, there is no occasion for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties. 11. So far reliance of the petitioner on the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ram Vilas Mishra (supra) is concerned, no doubt when the interest of justice requires, this Court can give appropriate direction even in a contempt proceeding, but in the instant case no such extreme ground is apparent because the petitioner has the opportunity to challenge the said order before an appropriate forum, which is authorized to see illegalities or otherwise in the order of the Resident Commissioner. 12. So far the order of blacklisting of the petitioner’s firm dated 27.03.2012 is concerned, the petitioner has already challenged the same in a writ petition, which had been disposed of with certain observations/directions and hence there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in such matters in this proceeding. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court Patna High Court MJC No.2019 of 2012 (6) dt.23-01-2013 Page 6 does not find any reason to proceed with this contempt proceeding, which is, accordingly, disposed of. MPS/- (S.N. Hussain, J)