RAM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. SHAHJUDUDDIN SIDIIQQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for taking action under the provisions of the said Act against respondents/contemnors for their alleged act of having deliberately and intentionally flouted the orders of this Court dated 15/12/10 in W.P.No.7381/10, dated 12/12/11 in Contempt Petition No.372/11 and lastly dated 13/1/12 in R.P.No.330/11.

(2.) FACTS in short relevant for this petition are that the petitioner, who is a contractor, was earlier assigned work of constructing shops under the Municipal area of Nagar Panchayat, Seondha, district Datia. It is not disputed that the said offer was given to the petitioner after inviting tenders under the resolution. The agreement was also executed between the parties for carrying out work of the said construction. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the said agreement, he started constructions and fifty shops were constructed out of the need which were duly examined and inspected by the concerned authorities. It is stated that when the petitioner forwarded the bills for payment of the work so carried out by him in terms of the agreement, the respondents took a plea of sanction and neglected the demands on one ground or the other. When several requests of the petitioner turned with no response, he had to knock the doors of this court by preferring W.P.No.7381/10 which came to be decided finally vide order dated 15/12/10. Relevant directions are reproduced as under: -

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that after issuing the aforesaid directions the petitioner submitted his claim alongwith the copy of the order before the authority concerned which was received by them. The respondents No. 1 and 2, in turn, informed the petitioner that since work was carried out against the sanction, criminal case is registered at Crime No.4/10 which is pending and therefore no payment can be made. The said reply given to the petitioner is reflected in Annexure X/3. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Seondha, in its turn sent a letter dated 13.01.2011 vide Annexure X/4 addressing the Superintendent of Police State Economic Offences Bureau with a request to return the record and issue further direction for making payment in favour of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police in response to Annexure X/4 requested the authority/Chief Municipal Officer to inspect the relevant record in the office and thereafter, take appropriate steps for payment of the dues. The said permission given for inspection of the record is contained in Annexure X/5 dated 04.03.2011.