Ms At Dev Prabha Jv Through Its Authorized Signatory Kumbhnath Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. AT DEV PRABHA (JV), filed a contempt case alleging wilful disobedience of a previous order dated June 21, 2018, as modified on September 6, 2018, passed in W.P.(C) No.931 of 2018. The original writ petition directed the respondent-BCCL (Bharat Coking Coal Limited) to take a final decision expeditiously on an issue related to a contract, considering all relevant aspects and without being influenced by previous board decisions. In response to the contempt notice, the opposite parties (State of Jharkhand & Ors., including BCCL officials) filed a third show cause affidavit stating that BCCL had taken a final decision in its 350th Board Meeting held on March 19, 2019, in compliance with the court's direction. An extract of the minutes of this meeting was annexed, detailing the revised contract value and approval for land acquisition.

Held

The Court held that the opposite parties had complied with the order dated June 21, 2018, as modified on September 6, 2018. The Court noted that the third show cause affidavit filed by the opposite parties clearly stated that BCCL had taken a final decision in relation to the contract in question as per the court's direction. The annexed extract of the minutes of the 350th Board Meeting of BCCL held on March 19, 2019, was considered as evidence of this final decision. The decision involved approving a revised contract value of Rs. 483,20,97,600 plus GST impact of Rs. 16,28,70,922, and also approved the cost of land acquisition. Since the court found that a final decision had been taken, it saw no reason to proceed further with the contempt proceedings. The contempt proceedings against the opposite parties were dropped, and the contempt case was disposed of. The Court also clarified that if the petitioner remained aggrieved by the decision of the 350th Board Meeting, they could take appropriate recourse under the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the opposite parties have wilfully disobeyed and deliberately violated the order dated June 21, 2018, as modified on September 6, 2018, passed in W.P.(C) No.931 of 2018, thereby constituting contempt of court? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner alleged that the respondents had failed to comply with the court's directive to take a final decision expeditiously, leading to the contempt petition. Opposite Parties' Contention: The opposite parties argued that they had complied with the court's order by taking a final decision in the 350th Board Meeting of BCCL held on March 19, 2019. They submitted minutes of the meeting as evidence of this compliance.