Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1527 (RAJ)

Raj Clay Products v. Ashok Sampat Ram

2013-09-03

GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—This contempt petition is preferred alleging deliberate and willful non-compliance of the directions given under the order dated 8.12.1993 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.919/1990. By the order aforesaid while disposing of the writ petition a direction was given to the District Level Committee or its successor to dispose of the petitioner’s application for grant of subsidy under the Central Subsidy Scheme within a period of two months from the date of placing the order before the competent authority. The application of the petitioner was required to be disposed of in the light of Baldwa Synthetics case. 2. Suffice to mention that the appeal preferred before Division Bench (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.581/1994) giving challenge to the judgment dated 8.12.1993 also came to be dismissed on 23.9.1994. As per the petitioner, no positive action was taken by the respondents in pursuant to the directions given by this Court, therefore, a notice dated 19.2.2006 was served on the Collector, Jaisalmer and General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jaisalmer by the petitioner through his counsel Shri Dinesh Mehta, Advocate. In response to the notice aforesaid, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jaisalmer by communication dated 25.2.2006 conveyed to the Commissioner, Commissionerate of Industries, Rajasthan, Jaipur that the petitioner preferred a petition for writ that came to be disposed of on 8.12.1993. The appeal also came to be dismissed subsequent thereto and while narrating all these details, a reference was also given that the application submitted by the petitioner also came to be rejected on 28.7.1994 by the State Level Committee in its 31st meeting. A copy of the communication aforesaid was also forwarded to Shri Dinesh Mehta, Advocate. Though, a reference of the dismissal of the application was given in the communication dated 25.2.2006 but no specific order or minutes of the meeting wherein the application of the petitioner was rejected was annexed or otherwise forwarded to the petitioner or his counsel. In such circumstance the petitioner preferred this contempt petition before this Court to invoke its authority as per Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 3. All the respondents filed separate replies to the contempt petition and also placed on record copy of the minutes of the proceedings of 31st Meeting of State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme held on 28.7.1994. In the minutes the Agenda Item No.7 pertains to subsidiary case of the petitioner. 3. All the respondents filed separate replies to the contempt petition and also placed on record copy of the minutes of the proceedings of 31st Meeting of State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme held on 28.7.1994. In the minutes the Agenda Item No.7 pertains to subsidiary case of the petitioner. The Committee concern rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of subsidiary by drawing certain reasons. 4. After having reply to the contempt petition, it is submitted by Shri Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner that if the respondents would have supplied copy of the minutes, which are now placed on record, there would have been no necessity of filing this contempt petition and the petitio-ner too would have availed appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance arising out of rejection of his case for grant of subsidiary. It is submitted by him that the governmental authorities are required to satisfy the aggrieved person by conveying complete information pertaining to his grievance. 5. Shri G.R. Punia, learned Additional Advocate General quite fairly accept that some delay occurred in making necessary communication but in any case the decision of the State Level Committee was conveyed to the petitioner through his counsel under the communication dated 25.2.2006. It is asserted by Shri Punia that no case for initiating contempt proceeding survives in view of the decision taken by the State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1990 on 28.7.1994. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. True it is, in view of the decision taken by the State Level Committee in its meeting dated 28.7.1994 it cannot be said that necessary compliance of the directions given by this Court vide the judgment dated 8.12.1993 was not made, however, a liability always rests upon the governmental authorities to convey its decision to the party concern/ aggrieved person about the decision taken and the reasons thereof. In the instant matter, a direction was given to the respondents much back in the year 1993 and that was complied in the year 1994, even prior to disposal of the appeal but no adequate information about that was given to the petitioner. At the first instance an information was forwarded to the petitioner vide the communication dated 25.2.2006 i.e. after about 12 years from the date of taking the decision. At the first instance an information was forwarded to the petitioner vide the communication dated 25.2.2006 i.e. after about 12 years from the date of taking the decision. As a matter of fact, this information too was given in response to a notice served upon the competent authorities by the petitioner through his counsel. The respondents at their own never cared to inform the petitioner about the decision taken on his application for having subsidy under the State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1990. If the respondents would have been vigilant enough in conveying their decision to the petitioner immediately after having a decision on 28.7.1994, then the petitioner would have been saved from mental agony he faced for a period of more than a decade. The respondents being a governmental authorities and a welfare Institution are supposed to act objectively, diligently and with all transparency. The tendency of hiding and not conveying relevant facts to the aggrieved citizens is anti-thesis to the concept of democratic and welfare State. In the instant matter, the petitioner suffered a mental agony and was also burdened with litigation un-necessarily due to inaction on the part of the respondents. Shri G.R. Punia, learned Additional Advocate General realizing the agony faced by the petitioner and also the un-necessary burden put upon the petitioner as well as to the Court has availed necessary instructions from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jaisalmer, tendered apology and felt regret on behalf of the State for all the delay caused in the matter. 8. Having considered the same, this contempt petition is dismissed. The Rule issued is discharged. It is expected from State Government that in future necessary information shall be given to the person aggrieved with all efficacy and diligence.