Rajnarayan Singh Parihar vs. G.R. Gujre Chief Engineer

Held

The Court held that the respondents had filed a compliance report and had taken steps to address the petitioner's claim. The report indicated that a significant portion of the amount due, Rs. 2,95,832/-, had been paid to the petitioner after deducting GST. The remaining unpaid amounts (Rs. 12,78,156/- and Rs. 8,62,728/-) were attributed to a lack of entries in the records. The Court, in its discretion, did not find the respondents in contempt. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition if he was aggrieved by the non-payment of the aforesaid amounts. The contempt petition was disposed of with this liberty, effectively closing the contempt proceedings without a finding of contempt.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajnarayan Singh Parihar, a contractor, filed a contempt petition civil against respondents G.R. Gujre and H.L. Verma. The contempt petition alleged disobedience of an order dated 05.02.2020 passed in WP No.29842/2018. The earlier writ petition had directed respondents No. 3 and 5 to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order regarding unpaid amounts for work done. The respondents filed a compliance report indicating a total amount of Rs. 24.38 lacs was due. Of this, Rs. 12,78,156/- and Rs. 8,62,728/- remained unpaid due to a lack of record entries. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,95,832/-, after deducting GST, was paid to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have voluntarily disobeyed the order dated 05.02.2020 passed in WP No.29842/2018, thereby constituting contempt of court? (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the respondents failed to comply with the order directing them to consider his representation and pass an appropriate order regarding the unpaid amount for work done. The non-payment of the full amount due, despite the earlier directions, indicated disobedience. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, through their compliance report, submitted that they had considered the petitioner's representation. They explained that certain amounts could not be paid due to a lack of entries in their records. They further stated that the remaining payable amount, after GST deduction, had been paid. They argued that this constituted compliance, or at least a good faith effort, and that the petitioner was at liberty to file a fresh petition if aggrieved by the non-payment of the disputed amounts.