AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Contempt of the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.3834/2015 is alleged in this petition. Therein this Court directed that the
“remaining amount†of grant-in-aid due to the petitioner-College upto the year 2011 be paid within a period of seven days from the date of receipt
of the order failing which it would carry interest @ 12%. The court further directed verification of the petitioner’s claim for grant in aid for
financial year 2011-12 be done within a period of one month from the date of the order and amounts verified be paid to the petitioner within a period of
two months thereafter, failing which the amount found due on verification was so carry interest @12% p.a. from when due till date of payment.
Mr.Vivek Dangi counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 17.2.2017 passed by the Court entails the necessary conclusion that the
amounts due to the petitioner upto the FY year 2010-11 were admitted and not in question. They were to be paid without demur. This, Mr.Vivek
Dangi submitted because the amounts due on account of sanctioned grant in aid upto the year 2011 were set out in the writ petition duly supported by
the department’s finalization of statement upto FY 2010-11 based on Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions
(Recognition, Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1993’). The said pleadings in the said petition
and annexures in support with regard to the amount due were not controverted by the respondent-Department and that constituted an admission under
Order 8 Rule 5 CPC of the amounts due upto the FY 2010-11. Mr.Vivek Dangi submitted that in this view of the matter it is not open for the
respondent to contend in this contempt petition as they do, that the amount as reflected in the pleadings in SBCWP No.3834/2015 are not the
“remaining amount†due upto FY 201011 payable to the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Dangi further submitted that with regard to the amounts due
towards grant-in-aid due to the petitioner for FY 2011-12 while the petitioner claims that the due amount of sanctioned grant-in-aid is Rs.40,42,524/-
the Department has wrongly calculated the amount in question only as Rs.30,68,015/-. Mr.Vivek Dangi submitted that questioning the amount of
grant in aid due to the petitioner in the contempt petition in an attempt to circumvent the finality of the Court’s order dated 17.2.2017 on the
untenable legal alibi of the amount of grant in aid to the petitioner being open to be reverified and then purportedly found to have not only been paid in
full but in fact over paid for recovery of which the department is entitled. He submitted that one the amounts towards grant in aid due upto FY 2010-
11 had been finalizedâ€"it was not open for the respondents to seek verification thereof and find purported errors and omissions. And based thereupon
to revise the arithmetic altogether. If this were to be allowed Mr.Vivek Dangi submitted “reverification†would be a perpetual unending exercise
and the right to receive sanctioned grant in aid rendered a mere chimera and indefinitely postponed. Mr.Vivek Dangi relied upon the judgments of
the Apex Court in the case of T.R. Dhananjaya vs. J.Vasudeva reported in [(1995) 5 SCC 619] and State of Assam vs. Union of India & Others
reported in [(2010)10 SCC 408] in support of his contentions relating to deemed admission/s referable to Order 8 Rule 5 CPC and the Court’s
disallowing legal alibi’s to circumvent finality in the orders of the Court.Â
Mr.S.K. Gupta, AAG counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the case of the petitioner based on purported non- payments of the alleged
“remaining amounts†due towards sanctioned grant in aid upto the FY 2010-2011 is unsustainable.
Mr.S.K. Gupta, submitted that there was no specific finding of the Court as to the amounts due towards sanctioned grant in aid upto FY 2010-11. And
as of certain amounts being reflected as grant in aid payable to the petitioner on the basis of statement of finalization under Rule 12 of the Rules of
1993 annexed to the SBCWP No.3834/2015, it is an universal accounting practice that errors and omissions in accounts can be rectified at any stage
even subsequent to payment and within limitation accounts overpaid recovered. It was submitted that in the course of compliance with the order dated
17.2.2017 passed by this Court, the account of the petitioner towards due sanctioned grant-in-aid were again rechecked/ verified with reference to
Rules of 1993 and thereupon it was found that far from any “remaining amount†being due to the petitioner towards sanctioned grant-in-aid upto
financial year 2010-11 i.e. a sum of Rs.34,88,000/- overpaid was recoverable from the petitioner. It was submitted that for the Financial Year 2011-12
the amount of sanctioned grant-in-aid due to the petitioner has been calculated in accordance with Rules of 1993 at Rs.34,88,000/-. All payments due
from the FY 20062007 to 2011-12 have been made on or about 24.2.2017. Over payments made by the State Government will be recovered in
accordance with law.
Mr.S.K. Gupta, emphatically submitted in the alternative that the contempt proceedings of this Court cannot be resorted to in terrorem as a substitute
for a suit for rendition of accounts where a dispute with regard to accounts obtains. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Niaz Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others reported in [(1994)6 SCC 332]Â where it was held that contempt petitions are not a kin
to execution proceedings under CPC and even if there be finality to the Court’s order, which will be enforced no matter what through in execution
proceedings, a contempt petition lying essentially in willful and intentional disobedience is not maintainable where disobedience even when found
(which cannot be found here) is in the compelling circumstances of facts obtaining in a case. Mr.S.K. Gupta, submitted that the case at hand stands
on a higher pedestal. The Court has under its order only directed payment of “remaining amountâ€. That “remaining amount†was not set out
or stated and admittedly was not adjudicated. The “remaining amount†were to be calculated and recalculated to the respondent’s content as
it entails outgo of public monies. The Court’s order does not prohibit so doing nor it could so do. That right to verification of accounts has been
exercised. Due diligence in tooth-combing the accounts in issue with reference to the manner of calculation of sanctioned grant in aid as provided for
in the Rule 12 of the Rules of 1993 has been done. The exercise has entailed the conclusion that far from any “remaining amount†due and
payable to the petitioner, monies having been over paid and are recoverable.
Heard. Considered.
It is trite that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature. It is equally well settled that only willful disobedience of the order/s of the Court or
breach of undertaking filed in Court is contempt. In the aforesaid legal position, it has to be considered as to whether in the instant case any non-
compliance with the order dated 17.2.2017 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.3834/2015 is made out and if so, whether it tantamounts to willful
disobedience of the Court’s order to entail contempt.
The order dated 17.2.2017 passed by this Court interalia directed the respondents pay the “remainder amount†of grant-in-aid due to the petitioner
upto FY 2010-11 within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of that order. That alleged non- payment of “remaining amount†is stated to be
contempt of the Court’s order. I am of the considered view that the order dated 17.2.2017 did not entail nor directed to pay any specific amount of
grant-in-aid upto the FY 2010-11 and for the FY 2011-12. The “remaining amount†due was to be paid. For this the respondents had a right to
calculate the amount due. Mr.Vivek Dangi may be right in stating that the amount of due grant-in-aid upto FY 201011 as asserted by the petitioner in
SBCWP No.3834/2015 based on the statements of finalization under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1993 was not disputed at the relevant time. That
however cannot be the end of the matter. It is an universal accounting practice that accounts drawn can be revisited/ rechecked to rectify errors and
omissions. The order of this Court passed on 17.02.2017 did not take away that universal right of the respondents in ascertaining afresh the remaining
amount of grant-in-aid due to the petitioner upto the FY 2010-11. The right to reverify accounts before payment of grant in aid upto financial year
2011-12 having been exercised as the respondents have stated, and no “remaining amounts†due to the petitioner then being found, the
respondents cannot be held in contempt for non payments of grant in aid allegedly due to the petitioner.
I am of the considered view that in the facts on record, the contempt proceedings cannot be utilized by the petitioner to coerce the respondent to pay
the amount of grant in aid which according to them are not due and payable. Neither the judgment relied upon by Mr.Vivek Dangi with regard to the
deemed admission by resort to Order 8 Rule 5 CPC T.R. Dhananjaya vs. J.Vasudeva (supra) nor the judgment with regard to the legal alibi being
no escape from the finality of an order/ judgment State of Assam vs. Union of India & Others (supra) are apposite to the facts of the case.
The contempt petition stands dismissed accordingly.
It is however in place to observe that in the event the petitioner-College is dissatisfied with the amount of sanctioned grant-in-aid found payable
Financial Year 2006-07 to 2010-11 and for Financial Year 2011-12 it shall be free to take its remedy by way of suit for rendition of accounts. All
defences on fact/ law will be open to the department. Similarly the respondent-State shall be at liberty to take it’s similar proceedings for recovery
of the purported over paid amounts, if any, to the petitioner. Needless to state the petitioner on its part, shall be free to resort to all facts/ law in
defence.Â