Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 356 (JHR)

Amar Nath Dalmia v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-06

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER Mr. Rajeev Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner Submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in a writ application directing the Secretary to pass a fresh order after taking into account the ground taken by the petitioner in his representation and also the report submitted by the Director, the Secretary passed an order on 31.7.2013 but it did not take into account the fact which was there in the report of the Director, rather he based his order on the report of Mr.B.B.Mishra, though there was no such direction. At the same time, the ground taken in the show cause was also not taken into account. 2. After hearing when this Court did find the submission to be correct, the Secretary was again directed to reconsider it and to pass order. Thereupon an order was passed on 09.10.2013 but again it was not in consonance with the order passed by this Court. Subsequently, the Secretary on his own passed an order on 9.12.2013 perhaps on account of observation made by this Court during hearing of this case. But again, it is not in consonance with the direction given by this Court. 3. In this regard, it was submitted that the Secretary while passing such order has reiterated that the Director without waiting for the report of the Laboratory, R.C.O.F, Bhubneshwar has passed an order for making payment but this is not correct, as by the time the Director had passed an order the report was available and only on perusal of that report, an order had been passed for making payment and so far process of manufacture of Vermi-Compost is concerned, the Secretary has reiterated its earlier stand basing his finding on the report of V.Mishra that Vermi-Compost cannot be prepared in less than 3 to 4 months whereas the Director by referring to the books written by a Scientist has stated that it can be prepared within less than 3 to 4 months. 4. It was also highlighted that opinion which had been given by Mr.B.B.Mishra was on the sample which had never been supplied, rather that was still under process whereas the Director had collected the sample which had been supplied and that sent it before the Laboratory. Upon receiving of the report, the Director has based his finding. 5. 4. It was also highlighted that opinion which had been given by Mr.B.B.Mishra was on the sample which had never been supplied, rather that was still under process whereas the Director had collected the sample which had been supplied and that sent it before the Laboratory. Upon receiving of the report, the Director has based his finding. 5. In such circumstances, submission was advanced that prima facie, it does appear that opposite party has disobeyed the order and thereby he is liable to be proceeded under the provision of Contempt of Courts Act. 6. As against this, Mr.Jai Prakash, learned AAG by referring to comparative chart relating to finding given by Mr. B.B.Mishra and the Director as contained in Annexure D to the supplementary show cause submits that during enquiry, Mr. B.B.Mishra having found several irregularities with respect to dimension of the pits, number of pits and the process of manufacture of Vermi-Compost undertaken raised doubts as to whether the petitioner could have manufactured Vermi-Compost in such a huge quantity when such infrastructure is not there and also doubted over the quality of the Vermi-Compost supplied but the Director does not seems to have done enquiry over all those matters, rather he simply by referring to relevant extract of the Journal has reported that Vermi-Compost may be manufactured in 3545 days but he has not stated that the Director has adopted the said procedure mentioned in the Journal for preparing Vermi-Compost. 7. Thus, it was submitted that the Director being silent over other points, referred to above, can be said to have accepted not directly but by implication the irregularities being committed by the petitioner. That apart, all these facts have been taken into account along with the grounds taken by the petitioner in its show cause while passing the order on 9.12.2013 and thereby the order passed by this Court can be said to have complied with by the opposite party no.2. 8. That apart, all these facts have been taken into account along with the grounds taken by the petitioner in its show cause while passing the order on 9.12.2013 and thereby the order passed by this Court can be said to have complied with by the opposite party no.2. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the opposite party no.2, particularly the order dated 9.12.2013, it seems that while passing such order, opposite party no.2 has taken into account the grounds taken by the petitioner in his show cause and also the report of the Director and where the Director was silent, the finding recorded by Mr.Mishra has been mentioned and thereby the order passed by this Court seems to have been complied with. 9. In such situation, I need not to go into legality and propriety of the order as it would be beyond the scope of the power vested with the Court dealing with the matter relating to contempt. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge it before an appropriate forum. 10. Accordingly, this proceeding of contempt is dropped. Proceeding dropped.