M/S Lokesh Sanitary Store vs. Ms. Chanchal Yadav

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Lokesh Sanitary Store, filed a contempt petition against Ms. Chanchal Yadav for alleged wilful disobedience of a previous High Court order dated 01.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.13805/2024. The earlier order had directed that the petitioner be allowed to furnish a fresh response to a show cause notice dated 15.01.2024 within two weeks, followed by a personal hearing and a reasoned order within two weeks of the reply. The petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled. The respondent's counsel stated that a fresh show cause notice had been issued, a hearing afforded, and the matter was with the competent authority for a decision within two weeks. The petitioner's counsel denied receiving any fresh show cause notice.

Held

The Court noted that the respondent's counsel, on instructions, stated that a fresh show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner, an opportunity for hearing had been provided, and the matter was before the competent authority for an appropriate decision within two weeks. The petitioner's counsel denied receiving any fresh show cause notice. The Court directed that the appropriate decision be passed. It further stated that if the petitioner remained aggrieved, they could institute appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with the law. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed without prejudice. The Court did not make a finding on whether wilful disobedience had occurred, but rather allowed the process to continue and left the door open for further legal recourse if the petitioner was still aggrieved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the directions of this Court dated 01.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No.13805/2024, thereby warranting initiation of contempt proceedings? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent had failed to comply with the court's previous order, which mandated a specific timeline for issuing a reasoned order after receiving a reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's actions, or lack thereof, constituted wilful disobedience. Respondent's arguments: The respondent's counsel submitted that steps were being taken to comply with the court's directions, including issuing a fresh show cause notice and affording an opportunity for hearing. They stated that a decision would be taken within two weeks. The respondent implicitly argued that no wilful disobedience had occurred as compliance was in progress.