Gajendra Singh Kandiyal vs Dinesh Kumar Bijalwan

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioner had filed this contempt petition on 28.03.2017, seeking compliance of the judgment dated 30.11.2016, as was passed by the

coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3195 of 2016, Gajendra Singh Kandiyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others.

The judgement dated 30.11.2016, which has been sought to be enforced in the present contempt petition, contained the following directions:-

“6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers available on record, the writ

petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the request of the petitioner for payment regarding work done by him,

which is not disputed and duly certified by the competent person/authority and make payment to the petitioner expeditiously. So far payment relating to

the work, which is disputed, the petitioner can avail appropriate remedy available to him under the law.â€​

The direction given therein was that the respondent, was to consider the request of the petitioner for the payment of charges, in relation to the work,

which was already done by the petitioner and which was not a disputed fact in the writ petition.

On this contempt petition, notices were issued to the respondent on 29.03.2017, and when the compliance was not made and matter was taken up

on 31.12.2020, Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel, was granted ten days’ time to complete his instructions and to make a statement

on the next date of listing.

Today, when the contempt was taken up, Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, the learned Standing Counsel, at the Bar, had produced the letter being letter No.

55/22 AC dated 05.01.2021, which is a communication which was made by the Executive Engineer of Sub Division, Public Works Department,

Lansdown; to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, whereby in para 3, they have made a statement that in pursuance to the Agreement No. 9/EE

dated 18.05.2007, the petitioner had been remitted an amount of Rs. 16,57,341/-, which commensurate 90% of the amount, due to be paid to the

petitioner. Relevant para No. 3 of the letter dated 05.01.2021, reads as under:-

...

“3. 0 9/ 18.05.2007 - 0 0 9

1657341.00 90 0

â€​

As far as the payment/refund of the balance 10% amount is concerned, for the said amount, the respondent has yet again written a letter being

letter No. 05/22AC dated 02.01.2021, wherein it has been observed that; for the purposes of refund of 10% security amount, the petitioner had been

asked to approach the respondent and file an appropriate application for its refund and once petitioner does so, they will refund the amount in question.

Relevant para No. 2 of letter dated 02.01.2021 is quoted hereunder:-

.. . .. . .. .

“2. 0. 7.9/. 14.03.2008 0 102/ 26.12.2006 0 30/ 14.12.2008

0 130/ 23.11.2012 10 Refund ,

â€​

In view of the aforesaid contentions, raised in the two correspondences, referred above, the contempt petition is closed. The notice issued to the

respondent is hereby discharged. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner approaches the respondent within a period of ten days from the date

of receipt of the certified copy of this order, the respondent would ensure to remit the balance 10% security amount, which is shown to have been

reflected in para 2 of the correspondence dated 02.01.2021, and they will be ensuring its remittance within the period of ten days thereafter.

The communications given by the learned Standing Counsel is taken on record and is made as part of the contempt petition.