Joginder Nath Gupta vs. Lt. General Arvind Walia Engineer In Chief And Others

Held

The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the contempt petition. The petitioner sought to withdraw the present contempt petition with liberty to take recourse to any other remedy available to him, as per law. The Court found no reason to disagree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and the rule issued therein was discharged. The Court also noted that any pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. The Court did not make any specific finding on whether the respondents had actually complied with the order dated 05.06.2025, as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Joginder Nath Gupta, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an order dated 05.06.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in CWP-16774-2025. This earlier writ petition concerned the petitioner's claim regarding GST benefits as a HUF. The respondents, including the Engineer-in-Chief, Military Engineer Services, had submitted an affidavit stating that the petitioner's case would be processed and completed within two weeks. The contempt petition was filed for initiating proceedings against the respondents for failing to comply with this order. During the hearing of the contempt petition, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the present petition, requesting liberty to pursue other available remedies as per law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have failed to comply with the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-16774-2025, thereby warranting initiation of contempt proceedings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents had not complied with the order, which directed the processing and completion of his case regarding GST benefits as a HUF within two weeks. The filing of the contempt petition itself implies an assertion of non-compliance. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, stated that the petitioner's case would be processed and completed within a period of two weeks. This statement was made in an affidavit filed in response to the earlier writ petition. The respondents did not explicitly argue against the contempt, but rather indicated a commitment to resolve the matter.