Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2276/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 2276 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6632 of 2011
=========================================================
S.B
KARELIYA (RETIRED) & 34 - Applicant(s)
Versus
C.P.PATEL
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & 2 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MSURVIARAVAL
for Applicant(s) : 1 -
35.
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 - 3.
MR HS MUNSHAW for
Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 18/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. This
Court on 07.10.2011 had passed the following order –
“1. The
basis of the present proceedings is the order dated 24.06.2011 passed
by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil
Applications No. 6632 of 2011 with 6633 of 2011 to 6666 of 2011,
whereby the learned Single Judge directed respondent no.1 viz.
District Development Officer to refund the amount recovered from the
petitioner so far within a period of six weeks from the date of the
receipt of the order and after refund, the respondent no.1 has been
ordered to grant reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and thereafter to pass the fresh order in accordance
with law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to
the Court that Letters Patent Appeals were preferred before the
Division Bench against the order of the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench vide order dated 12.8.2011 expressly rejected the
prayer for interim relief. In spite of the same the order has not
been complied with.
2. Attempt
was made by the learned Counsel for respondent no.1 to contend that
as the Letters Patent Appeal was to be finally heard, the amount has
not been refunded. He further states that the amount has already been
deposited with the Treasury and therefore the procedure for recalling
of the amount for withdrawal of the amount may take some time and
therefore he submitted that either this Court may await final
disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal or time may be granted and now
in his submission, the matter is fixed on 10.10.2011.
3. It
is hardly required to be recorded that once the interim relief was
expressly rejected by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal it
was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.1 herein to comply
with the order. In spite of the fact that the period of six weeks has
already expired he has not refunded the amount.
4. Hence,
unless the Letters Patent Appeal is finally disposed of and any
further order is passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent
Appeal, it is directed that respondent no.1 shall refund the amount
to the concerned petitioner on or before 18.10.2011 failing which he
shall remain personally present before this Court and explain as to
why appropriate punishment should not be imposed upon him for
committing breach of the order of this Court.
5. S.O.to
18.10.2011. Mr. Munshaw shall communicate this order. Direct
service is permitted.”
2. Thereafter,
affidavit in reply has been filed by the District Development Officer
dated 14.10.2011, whereby it has been reported that the payment has
been made and the report is also produced with the said affidavit.
3. Under
the circumstances, we find that as there is compliance to the order,
no further action deserves to be taken.
4. Hence,
disposed of accordingly.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(R.M.
CHHAYA, J.)
*bjoy
Top