Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 260 (HP)

DEVTA SAHIB THAN v. S. K. SOOD

2001-09-28

C.K.THAKKER

body2001
JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, CJ. :- Admitted Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate appears and waives services of admission on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for hearing today. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate direction to deal with and punish the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Deity known as Devta Sahib. Than Bharmol at Mauza Shivan. Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla. Due to action taken by the respondent-authorities, substantial damage has been caused to the petitioner but no amount was paid. In the circumstances, it was obliged to approach this Court by filing CWT No.793 of 2000, which was decided by a Division Bench on March 3, 2001. In the operative part of the order, it was directed as under: "Though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in our opinion, it would not be appropriate to enter into larger question in these proceedings. In view of the fact that a statement is made in the affidavit-in-reply that a damage to the extent of Rs. 1632/-was caused and yet no amount was paid, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the respondent-authorities are directed to pay the said amount to the petitioner with interest. It is clear that the said amount became due and payable when the loss had been caused to the petitioner in the year 1977-78. Since the said amount was not paid at that time, it would be proper and equitable if the said amount is ordered to be paid along with interest. We, therefore, allow this petition by directing the respondent-authorities to pay the amount of Rs.1632/- along with interest from 1st January, 1978 at the rate of 12% per annum. Since the petitioner had to approach this Court due to default on the part of the respondent-authorities, they will also pay costs of this petition, which is quantified at Rs.2000/-. The entire amount will be paid within a period of six weeks." 4. Since the petitioner had to approach this Court due to default on the part of the respondent-authorities, they will also pay costs of this petition, which is quantified at Rs.2000/-. The entire amount will be paid within a period of six weeks." 4. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that an amount of Rs.1632/- was to be paid to the petitioner Deity along with interest @ 12% per annum from January 1, 1978 and though the direction was to pay the amount within six weeks from the date of the order along with costs of Rs.2000/-, the amount has not been paid. Since the order was passed on March 7, 2001, the amount was to be paid on or before April 18, 2001, (within a period of six weeks). This necessitated the petitioner to file the present petition. The petition was instituted on July 23, 2001 and it was placed for admission/hearing on August 3, 2001. Notice was issued and was made returnable after six weeks. Today, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Affidavits on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 3 and 2 have been filed. I have admitted the matter. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the amount was not paid as per the direction of the Court and thereby the respondents have committed contempt of court. It was also stated that even in the past, amount was not paid and the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court. He, therefore, submitted and appropriate proceedings are required to be taken. It was submitted that the amount has been deposited op. September 4, 2001 i.e., not only after filing of the petition but after more than a month of issuing notice in the present petition. He therefore submitted that this is a fit case in which exemplary costs may be awarded to the Deity. 6. Respondents No. 1 and 3 in their affidavit-in-reply have stated that they are law abiding citizens and hold the dignity of this Court in highest esteem. He therefore submitted that this is a fit case in which exemplary costs may be awarded to the Deity. 6. Respondents No. 1 and 3 in their affidavit-in-reply have stated that they are law abiding citizens and hold the dignity of this Court in highest esteem. They also stated that they cannot think of disobeying the order of this court, however, if there is non-compliance with the order or direction of this Court, they tender sincere and unconditional apology for the same and pray that the same may be accepted. 7. Similar unconditional apology has also been tendered by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 in his affidavit-in-reply, has further stated that when the order was passed by this Court on March 17,2001, he was not present in Court, but an intimation was sent by the office of the Advocate General, which was received by respondent No.2 on April 11, 2001. It was then stated that the respondent marked the file to the Assistant Engineer, Kumarsain for working out the interest, who, in turn, sent it to the land Acquisition Officer. Rampur, for calculating the interest and, thereafter, he received the file back in the last week of May, 2001. Immediately, he passed the bill and directed the Assistant Engineer, Kumarsain to complete the necessary formalities so that the payment could be made. Then, he was on leave from July 15, 2001 to August 13, 2001 and from August 21, 2001, he was transferred to Shimla. It was, therefore, stated that there was no deliberate disobedience or flouting of the order of the Court. It was also stated that the amount of Rs.8,265/- on account of payment of interest and costs had been deposited in the Registry of this Court vide Draft No. 1075582 dated September 4, 2001. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, there was slackness and inaction on the part of respondent No.2. Looking to the affidavit-in-reply, however, - it cannot be said that there was intentional disobedience or willful flouting of order of this Court. When the respondent No.2 has tendered unqualified and unconditional apology, in my opinion, it deserves to be accepted. It is accordingly accepted and the proceedings are ordered to be dropped. 9. Looking to the affidavit-in-reply, however, - it cannot be said that there was intentional disobedience or willful flouting of order of this Court. When the respondent No.2 has tendered unqualified and unconditional apology, in my opinion, it deserves to be accepted. It is accordingly accepted and the proceedings are ordered to be dropped. 9. In my opinion, however, when there is non compliance of the order passed by this Court and the amount has not been paid within the stipulated period of six weeks as also, even after the intimation was received by respondent No.2 as stated by him on April 11,2001, there was considerable delay on his part interest of justice would be met, it the petitioner who is a Deilv, is ordered to be paid costs. In the facts and circumstances at the case, respondent No.2 will pay costs to the petitioner, which s quantified as Rs.1500/-. The amount, which is lying with the Registry will now be disbursed to the petitioner through Bank Draft/Cheque in the name of Deity and the same may be handed over to the learned counsel. It is stated at the bar that the amount of costs has already been paid by respondent No.2. The petition is accordingly disposed of.