Track Computers, Trough Proprietor Sunil Singh vs. Shri Mayank Chaturvedi

Facts

The petitioner, Track Computers, filed a contempt case alleging non-compliance with a High Court order dated August 21, 2023. This order directed the respondents (officials of the District Project Livelihood College Society, Dantewada) to reconsider the petitioner's claim and decide on payment of undisputed amounts within three months. The petitioner claims to have submitted representations but received no action. Subsequently, the respondents conducted a physical verification, found discrepancies in bills, and cleared only ₹11,38,142, paying ₹10,92,616 after deducting GST. The petitioner withdrew a previous contempt petition (CONT No. 1175 of 2023) after receiving this partial payment, with liberty to recover the balance. A subsequent writ petition (WPC No. 1766 of 2024) was withdrawn when the State counsel indicated the matter was still pending. The petitioner argues this demonstrates willful non-compliance.

Held

The Court held that the respondents have complied with the order of this Court regarding the undisputed amount. The judgment notes that the respondents deposited the undisputed amount to the petitioner. It also refers to the order dated March 28, 2024, in WP(C) No. 1766 of 2024, where the State counsel submitted that the matter was pending and the petition was not maintainable as no decision had been taken. However, the current Court's finding is that the order regarding the undisputed amount has been complied with. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the order passed by the respondent authorities regarding the balance amount, they may take recourse in accordance with law for recovery. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the contempt petition. The contempt petition is disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated August 21, 2023, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2379 of 2023, thereby committing contempt of court? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the respondents have willfully failed to comply with the Court's order within the stipulated three months. Despite representations and the withdrawal of a previous contempt petition based on the assurance of compliance, the remaining amount of ₹28,12,716 has not been paid. The State's submission in a subsequent writ petition that the matter was still pending further supports the claim of willful non-compliance and contempt. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argue that the petitioner's claim has been decided, and the undisputed amount has been deposited via cheque on January 23, 2024. They point to the withdrawal of the previous contempt petition as the petitioner acknowledged partial payment and was granted liberty to recover the balance. They further argue that the subsequent writ petition was filed against a communication, not a final decision, and was therefore not maintainable. They assert that the undisputed amount has been released, and therefore, contempt is not made out.