KAMLA KANT PANDEY Vs. RANJAN DWIVEDI, SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for contempt has been filed by the applicant for non -compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.12.2005. The operative portion of the judgment is quoted below:

(2.) The order of this Court was not complied with, then this application for contempt was filed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties annexing a chart and document stating therein that as the applicant was permitted to complete the work for a period of one year and during that period he has deposited the amount, therefore, he is not entitled for refund of the said amount. In the first year, the applicant was permitted to work and he has deposited Rs. 24,03,500/ -on 31.03.2004. Subsequently, by order dated 21st May 2004, the contract was cancelled. In such circumstances, as applicant was permitted to work for 78 days in the second year of contract and he was not permitted only for 12 days, therefore, he is entitled to refund of Rs. 3,40,466/ -and as regards the security amount he will be entitled to get that. As regards the refund of the stamp duty as well as the interest amount the review application has been filed.

(3.) From the record, it appears that contract for mining lease was granted to the applicant. Subsequently, it was cancelled on the ground that it was necessary to obtain permission under Sec. of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. In such circumstances, this Court has partly allowed the writ petition directing the authority concerned to take into consideration whether such permission can be granted and if according to Sec. of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, it cannot be granted, then amount with interest will be refunded to the applicant. As regards the other amounts for which the applicant claims that he is entitled to get it back in view of the cancellation of the contract including the stamp duty amount, Sri K.R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the opposite party, states that as the contract was executed between the parties, therefore, stamp duty provided by the applicant has already been utilized, therefore, it has to be taken into consideration whether it can be refunded to the applicant or not in view of the fact that the contract agreement between the parties has been cancelled. In such circumstances, parties are directed to file a better affidavit within a period of two weeks. Further, Sri K.R. Singh, is also directed to take into consideration the fact that order of this Court be complied with within a period of two weeks in true spirit.