J. TARIANG Vs. RAJAT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned CGC, appearing for and on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner who had set up lime calcinates plant and small scale industry in pursuant to the Govt. of Meghalaya New Industrial Policy, 1988 laid claim for transport subsidies for the periods 1996 -97 and 01 -04 -1998 to 1999 payable to her under the Scheme of the Central Transport Subsidy. Aggrieved by the refusal to release the above subsidies led her to filing of WP (C) No. 110 [SH] of 2008. This Court vide order and judgment passed in said writ petition directed the respondents to release the transport subsidies for the periods from 01 -04 -1996 to 31 -03 -1997 and from 01 -04 -1998 to 04 -12 -1999 amounting to Rs. 6,55,216/ - and Rs. 6,35,193/ -respectively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment. The petitioner thereafter issued letters to the respondents, which were duly received by them on 14 -02 -2011 and 17 -02 -2011 but the respondents failed to comply with the direction of the judgment and order. Hence, this Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner for deliberate violation of the subsisting order of the Court.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3, in his affidavit -in -opposition, inter alia, has contended that pursuant to the passing of judgment, a decision was taken by the Department in consultation with the Ministry of Law to file an appeal against the judgment. Legal remedies are being pursued by the department without having any intention of whatsoever nature to violate and/or flout the order passed by this Court. The Department has been instructed to await the out -come of the stay application filed before the Divisional Bench. It is also averred that if the same is decided against the department, the amount directed to be paid by this Court would be immediately paid.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as there is no stay order and in view of the show cause rely, this Court should direct the respondents to deposit the entire amount in the Court.