Sri Nimai Kar vs. Sri Abhishek Singh And Ors

Held

The Court held that no case of deliberate disobedience of the order of the writ court had been made out. The Court considered the rival submissions and the reasoned order enclosed by respondent no. 4. The reasoning was that the previous writ court order had merely directed the authorities to consider the Petitioner's representation, and it did not enter into the merits of the Petitioner's entitlement. The reasoned order passed by the Executive Engineer was thus seen as an act of consideration as directed. The ratio decidendi is that a reasoned order passed in compliance with a direction to consider a representation, without a prior adjudication on merits by the writ court, does not constitute deliberate disobedience of the writ court's order. The Petitioner was granted liberty to assail the reasoned order in a fresh proceeding if aggrieved. The contempt petition was disposed of.

Facts

This contempt petition was filed by Sri Nimai Kar (Petitioner) against Sri Abhishek Singh and others (Respondents). The Petitioner alleged non-compliance with a previous order of the writ court. The Respondents filed an affidavit enclosing a reasoned order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Executive Engineer, LTV Division, PWD (R&B), stating it was in compliance with the writ court's direction. The Petitioner's counsel argued that this order was contrary to the writ court's directions, particularly concerning the claim for reimbursement of differential tax under the GST regime. The State's counsel contended that the writ court had not decided the Petitioner's entitlement but had merely directed consideration of the representation, and thus, there was no deliberate disobedience.

Key Issues

1. Whether the reasoned order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Executive Engineer, LTV Division, PWD (R&B) constitutes deliberate disobedience of the previous order of the writ court, considering the Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of differential tax under the GST regime? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the reasoned order passed by the Executive Engineer was in teeth of the directions issued by the writ court, which had acknowledged the Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of differential tax upon the implementation of the GST regime. The Petitioner's counsel contended that the order failed to address this aspect as per the writ court's mandate. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondent-State argued that the previous writ court order did not decide the Petitioner's entitlement to the claimed amount. Instead, it was a simple disposal of the case with a direction to the authorities to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2022 within a specified timeframe. Therefore, the State contended that there was no deliberate disobedience of the writ court's order.