Judgment/Order – Non-compliance of the order of the High Court – Aggravated contempt – HIDCO agreed to convey land to the appellants on freehold basis for Rs. 4,00,92,000/- – Appellant paid the entire amount – However, HIDCO decided that allotment would not be on freehold basis but on leasehold basis – Later, HIDCO addressed a letter stating that there would be change in proposed lease deed – Writ petition by appellants – The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 10.02.2020 found the action of respondents therein was arbitrary and directed them to register deed of sale/conveyance – SLP filed by HIDCO was dismissed – Thereafter, the appellants alleged non-compliance of the order and filed various contempt petitions – The High Court emphasized to abide by the command of its directions – However, in one of those contempt petitions, the High Court by the impugned judgment referred the matter to mediation – Correctness: Held: The approach of the High Court in passing the impugned order is totally untenable – When the High Court itself, on more than one occasions in the contempt proceedings, had found that the State was bound to comply with the writ of mandamus issued by it vide judgment and order dated 10.02.2020 and had also issued notice to the Chief Secretary of the State for complying with the directions issued by it, it could not have referred the matter for mediation – It is further to be noted that mediation has to be by the consent of both the parties – Mediation cannot be thrusted upon either of the parties – The Division Bench of the High Court in the present case, in spite of the resistance of the counsel for the appellants herein, only on the basis of the statement of the Advocate General appearing in the matter whereby it was submitted that the State was willing to offer the appellants an alternative piece of land, has referred the matter to mediation – The approach of the State Government in the present matter can be said to be one of committing aggravated contempt – The State ought to have conveyed the land in question to the appellants on the basis of the offer made initially – Besides that, asking the appellants to pay according to the current market rate after the appellants have succeeded before the High Court and this Court is an attempt to disobey and defeat the mandamus of the High Court – The impugned order, which has the effect of undermining the dignity and authority of the High Court, is not sustainable in law. [Paras 9, 11, 13]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Obedience to the command of the High Court:
Held: Under the constitutional scheme, a writ issued by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has not been interfered with by this Court has to be followed in letter and spirit, by all the authorities who are bound by such a writ – The majesty of law requires that due obedience has to be given to the command of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when it is not interfered with by this Court. [Para 12]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.