M/S Sai Construction vs. Shri Jai Gopal Pandey, Executive Engineer

Held

The Court prima facie found that a case of contempt had been made out against the opposite party for non-compliance with the order dated 13.9.2019. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the Court decided to grant one more opportunity to the opposite party to comply with the said order. The opposite party was directed to take steps for the refund of the admissible GST amount to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the current order. The Court outlined a procedural mechanism for ensuring compliance, involving the applicant supplying envelopes and the office forwarding the order and contempt application to the opposite party. The application was disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application if the order remained uncomplied with within the stipulated time. The ratio decidendi is that while contempt may be prima facie established, a final opportunity for compliance can be granted before proceeding with punitive measures, provided a clear timeline and mechanism for enforcement are established.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sai Construction, filed a contempt application (Civil) No. 1203 of 2020 before the High Court. This application stemmed from the alleged wilful non-compliance by the opposite party, Shri Jai Gopal Pandey, Executive Engineer, with a previous order dated 13.9.2019 passed in Writ C No. 26062 of 2019. In the prior writ petition, the Court had directed the respondent-competent authority to take steps for the refund of admissible GST amount to the petitioner within one month, based on an undertaking from the revenue's counsel that the due amount would be refunded. The petitioner submitted that despite providing a certified copy of the order, the opposite party failed to comply, constituting civil contempt.

Key Issues

1. Whether the opposite party has wilfully failed to comply with the order dated 13.9.2019 passed in Writ C No. 26062 of 2019, thereby committing civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the opposite party, Shri Jai Gopal Pandey, Executive Engineer, has wilfully not complied with the Court's order directing the refund of admissible GST amount, despite being served with a certified copy of the order. This non-compliance constitutes civil contempt. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the revenue or state in response to the contempt application. The Court's decision to grant an opportunity for compliance suggests a potential lack of immediate defiance or a willingness to rectify the situation.