Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 83 (GAU)

Matilal Jindal v. State of Assam

1995-04-10

M.SHARMA

body1995
Contempt petitioner who was the petitioner in Civil Rule No.2023 of 1989, has filed this petition against the then Director of Industries Department, Govt of Assam and Convenor State Level Committee alleging deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated 20.1.92 passed by High Court in the above mentioned Civil Rule. 2. Petitioner is one of the writ petitioner in the Civil Rule No.2023 of 1989 which was finally disposed of on 20.1.92 by this Court directing the respondent/ contemner to convene meeting of State Level Committee (SLC) within fortnight and the SLC to consider the claims of the petitioners again within another fortnight (Annexure A to the contempt petition). Accordingly, petitioner approached the respondent No.2 by a notice through his Advocate who is the Member Convenor of State Level Committee constituted by the Govt of Assam to deal with the subsidy matters under Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CISS) and Transport Subsidy Scheme (TSS) annexing a copy of the judgment, for information and necessary action and the same was received by the respondent No.2 on 19.2.92. Petitioner waited for a long time for response but nothing was done by the respondents and when repeated reminder failed to act and finding no other way filed the contempt petition. It is contended that due to non disbursement of subsidies, the industry, M/s Jindal Chemical Enterprises Pvt Ltd has faced acute financial crisis. It is also urged in the contempt petition that “unless something is done for immediate release of the subsidies, the industrial unit of the petitioner has to be closed down under compelling circumstances.” It is also contended that further claim for subsidies under CISS and TSS have been placed, amounting several lakhs of rupees pending for sanction and disbursement and that there is no other alternative and efficacious remedy except filing this contempt petition before this Court as because, the opposite parties/respondents are not in a mood to comply with or obey this Court's judgment (underline supplied). It is also submitted that there is deliberate and wilful disobedience of the judgment of this Court and therefore matter has been brought to the notice of this Court, whose lawful interest relating to disbursement of subsidy under the above mentioned scheme is involved. That the petitioner has been authorised by co-writ petitioners to prefer this contempt petition. 3. It is also submitted that there is deliberate and wilful disobedience of the judgment of this Court and therefore matter has been brought to the notice of this Court, whose lawful interest relating to disbursement of subsidy under the above mentioned scheme is involved. That the petitioner has been authorised by co-writ petitioners to prefer this contempt petition. 3. The alleged contemner, respondentNo.2 Shri Nilakanta Barua filed reply to the show cause notice and has averred that the State Level Committee took up the matter of the petitioner company. That immediately after receipt of this Court's order dated 20.1.92, various amount for the period from 1.1.87 to 30.9.89 were approved and information regarding the sanctioning of the subsidies in favour of the petitioner was informed to the Senior Govt Advocate, by letter dated 15.5.92 (Annexure A to the show cause reply). The further averment is that the claim of the petitioner for subsidy was under the CIS Scheme of the Govt of India; that Govt of India discontinued the scheme with effect from 30.9.88 and since huge number of claims were pending at the time when the scheme was discontinued, the Industries Department convened meeting of State Level Committee on 28.9.89, in which the claim of the petitioner for subsidy was also placed. But as the Govt of India, vide letter dated 29.7.89 stopped to accept the proposal of the State Level Committee the claim of the petitioner, was not entertained. Due to this discontinuation of the scheme by the Govt of India, thereafter, the State Govt introduced a scheme under the name and style 'State Capital Investment Subsidy' in 1991, giving effect from 1.10.88 and raised the percentage from 25% to 30% with a ceiling of Rs. 10 lakhs. That on receipt of the order of this Court, the meeting under State Capital Investment Subsidy (SCIS) scheme was convened on 13.3.92 and decision was taken in favour of the petitioner and accordingly action has already been taken under SCIS and Transport Subsidy Scheme in favour of the petitioner and by letter dated 14.8.92 (Annexure B) the petitioner was informed by the Director. 4. 4. Insistence of the petitioner is that though by judgment dated 20.1.92 this Court directed the Director of Industries, Govt of Assam to place the claim of the petitioners for subsidies in respect of the Schemes before the State Level Committee within a fortnight, the matter had never been placed before the State Level Committee which is apparent in records; that the alleged contemner has misled the Court by misreading and diluting the direction of the Court and trying to create confusion. This fact has been attempted by the petitioner to show that in the writ petition CRNo.2023 of 1989 affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Deputy Secretary to Govt of India in para 18 averred that CISS and TSS Scheme were different and governed by two different sets of procedure and modalities and that under both the schemes State Level Committee were constituted to examine the merits of the intending applicants for subsidies; that in the case of CISS Scheme such approval should be before expiry of the scheme in September, 1988; that in the case of petitioner there was no such sanction before 30.9.88 and that as such the petitioner was not eligible for Central Investment Subsidy Scheme. It was further averred that as regards TSS also there was no State Level Committee approval. 5. The moot point is whether there is wiful disobedience of this Court's order by the alleged contemner. Under the object of Contempt of Courts Act, it is not for the Court to make a roving enquiry whether for wilful non compliance of the Court's order the petitioner has faced loss or not; Court cannot pass order as an executing Court. If wilful non compliance is proved and the contemner is found guilty he be penalised under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The matter of contempt is entirely between the Court and the contemner, petitioner's role is to bring the matter to the notice of the Court. Attempt on the part of petitioner to obtain an adjudication or action from the Court for his own interest/ purpose under the guise of contempt, such action must not be encouraged. Court has to examine whether exercise of this jurisdiction for preservation of the dignity of administration of justice has been made out in the allegation. Attempt on the part of petitioner to obtain an adjudication or action from the Court for his own interest/ purpose under the guise of contempt, such action must not be encouraged. Court has to examine whether exercise of this jurisdiction for preservation of the dignity of administration of justice has been made out in the allegation. The petitioner's case is that as per the direction of the High Court the case of the petitioner had never been placed before the State Level Committee and on or before 30.9.88 disposed of the same. That though the CISS Scheme expired on 30.9.88, the Ministry of Information, Govt of India by letter dated 29.7.89 extended the disbursement till 31.12.89, if the project was approved by the State Level Committee (Approval Committee) or District Level Committee as the case may be on or before 30.9.88. As gathered from the affidavit-in-opposition of the Union of India the Transport Subsidy Scheme shall continue till 31.3.95. The Civil Rule No.2023 of 1989 was filed on 16.12.89. The direction of this Court was that the State Level Committee shall placed the claim of the petitioners for subsidy in respect of CISS and TSS within a fortnight and thereafter, State Level Committee shall consider the claim of the petitioner within a fortnight. Respondents immediately took step and claim of the petitioners for CISS and TSS for various amounts for the period from 1.1.78 to 30.9.88 were approved and accordingly the Senior Govt Advocate was informed by letter dated 15.5.92. Further, the State Level Committee was convened on 28.9.89 wherein claim of the petitioners for CISS was placed, but Govt of India vide letter dated 29.7.89 did not take cognizance to the proposal of the State Level Committee and therefore claim of the petitioner was not entertained, and from 30.9.88 the CISS has been discontinued. It is insisted by the petitioner that the procedure for claiming subsidy clearly set up the procedure for disbursement of the money through the financial institutions of the State Govt. The industrial units desirous of getting investment subsidy will approach the disbursing agencies and the State Level Committee would consider those application which in turn sanctions the disbursement of the subsidy to the industrial units in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. The industrial units desirous of getting investment subsidy will approach the disbursing agencies and the State Level Committee would consider those application which in turn sanctions the disbursement of the subsidy to the industrial units in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. After that, subsidy as sanctioned by the State Level Committee is disbursed to such industrial units - the disbursing agencies claims reimbursement of the amount in question from the Central Govt (Ministry of Industry). After receipt of the loan claims for reimbursement, in the Ministry of Industry, the claim is scrutinised and sanction order issued. Ministry of Industry also obtains the Demand Draft for the loan amount and disburse it to the concerned disbursing agencies. 6. The stand of the respondent is that it did approve petitioner's case in its meeting held on 28.9.89 but vide letter dated 29.9.89 the Central Govt did not keep cognizance of the proposal and therefore, as it is attempted to show by the contemner, claim of the petitioner was not entertained. But in the scheme, namely, State Level Investment Subsidy, introduced in 1991, giving effect from 1.10.88, petitioner's claim was taken. 7. From this it is apparent that the State Level Committee on 28.9.89 did recommend the name of the petitioner's firm, but it was not acted upon by the Central Govt due to discontinuation of the scheme, which was obviously a policy matter/decision of the Central Govt. This Court's direction to the Central or State Govt to extend the time is subject to the discretion of the Govt policy. Petitioner claims that as the petitioner's name was recommended by the State Level Committee under the terms of the CISS Scheme it is the State Govt which has to release the scheme amount and after such release of the money only the money will be reimbursed. But I hold that mere recommendation of the firm's name to the Central Govt by State Level Committee cannot entitled the petitioner to obtain the money from the State fund unless it is assured by the Industries Department of Central Govt to reimburse the money under the scheme which is a policy matter of the Central Govt. State Govt derives its authority to release the money on the assurance of reimbursement to it. State Govt derives its authority to release the money on the assurance of reimbursement to it. In that view of the matter the direction given by this Court cannot be executed by the State Industries Department due to the restrictions to dispense with the public money without assurance of reimbursement. 8. From the contentions of the petitioner the obvious pleas, as discussed above to execute the direction and to pay the CISS scheme amount claimed by petitioner the State Govt has to bear the amount from State fund. In a series of decisions the established position of law is that any attempt to obtain an adjudication from the Court or an action which a party desires for his own interest or purpose under the guise of contempt must not be encouraged. That test has to be and should be whether the exercise of this jurisdiction is necessary for the preservation of dignity of the Court for the purpose of administration of justice. From my above discussion I hold that the Court directed the State Level Committee to recommend the name of petitioner's firm and if already it's name has been recommended there would be no effect of the direction. The State Level Committee did recommend the name after the direction and after that the State Level Committee cannot disburse the money unless assurance is given by the Central Govt for reimbursement. There is no wilful violation/non compliance of Court's direction on the part of the respondent. 9. In the result the contempt petition is dropped.