Court No. - 50 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1484 of 2011 Applicant :- Anil Goel Opposite Party :- Sanjay Agarwal Principal Secretary S.I.C.D. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party.
This contempt application has been filed by one Anil Goel alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No. 39850 of 2009 (Chini Mill Karmchari Sangh Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was connected with Writ Petition No. 47934 of 2008 (Rajiv Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others).
It is contended that the writ court considered the vires of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 20091 and also the legislative competence to enact sections 3-C and 3-D thereof permitting the State to change the land use or to issue directions for change of land use in relation to the land belonging to the scheduled undertakings of the Corporation and validation of the Government Order dated 4.6.2007 and subsequent Government Orders in relation to disinvestment, privatization, sale, transfer in any form or closure of the scheduled undertakings or sugar mills of the Corporation and its subsidiaries. It was held that enactment of Sections 3-C and 3-D is beyond the legislative competence of the State of U.P. and those provisions were struck down. The writ court held that all consequential actions accordingly, would automatically fall on the ground. The rest of the provisions of Amendment Act, 2009 and the actions taken therein were held intra-vires.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the 1 Amendment Act, 2009 State of U.P., in so far as the writ court in its judgement dated 1.4.2010 struck down the provisions of Section 3C and 3D of the Amendment Act, 2009, had challenged the same before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16362 of 2010 in which case, by an interim order dated 28.5.2010 the following order was passed:-
"Leave granted. Hearing expedited.
Any action taken by the respondents in furtherance of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 2009 shall remain subject to final adjudication of the appeal.".
It is contended that thereafter, this Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) was converted into Civil Appeal No. 4766 of 2010 (Rajiv Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others). In this case before the Supreme Court, pursuant to an interim order, on the application filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court, the following order was passed:-
"These applications have been filed for modification of order dated 28.5.2010.
We have heard Ms. Tulika Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
In our view, the condition incorporated in order dated 28.5.2010 adequately protect the interest of the appellant. Any person who purchases the sugar mills in furtherance of the auction conducted by the State Government will be bound by that order.
With the above observation, I. As are disposed of."
The contention is that once Section 3-C and 3-D of the Amendment Act, 2009 were struck down by the High Court and all consequential actions being rendered nullity, the opposite parties could not have proceeded for changing the land use of the land of scheduled undertakings of the Corporation. The applicant has also filed the map of master plan for the year 2021 of District Bareilly to show that the lands of the Sugar Mills in question have become lands for residential purpose. It is, therefore, contended that the opposite parties flouted the order of the writ court dated 1.4.2010 for which they deserve to be punished.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has referred to order of the Supreme Court dated 28.5.2010 as clarified on 14.7.2010, that have been marked as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application, to contend that the judgement of the writ court is under consideration before the Supreme Court and any action taken by the State Government would remain subject to final adjudication of the appeal before the Supreme Court and that any person who purchases the sugar mill in furtherance of the auction conducted by the State Government would be bound by that order. Learned Standing Counsel has also referred to paragraph nos. 8,9,10,11 and 12 of the affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 and has contended that EOI cum RFQ (Expression of Interest-cum-request for qualification) were invited through wide publication in leading national newspapers and was uploaded/posted on websites of Government Department and there is no provision of change of land use in RFQ. It is also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that no rebuttal has been filed to this affidavit by the applicant. Though the writ court struck down Section 3C and 3D of the Amendment Act, 2009 and observed that all consequential actions to the extent indicated would automatically fall on the ground, the Supreme Court in its wisdom did not stay the operation of the judgement of the writ court dated 1.4.2010 but directed that any action taken by the respondents in furtherance of the Amendment Act, 2009 shall remain subject to final adjudication of the appeal on the interim application filed before the Supreme Court by an order dated 14.7.2010, the interim applications were disposed of after observing that the order dated 28.5.2010 adequately protects the interest of the appellant and any person who purchases the sugar mills in furtherance of the auction conducted by the State Government would be bound by that order.
This application has been filed by one Anil Goel who was not the party in the writ proceedings. However, it has been contended by Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel, that the applicant has come before the Court to place the fact that contempt has been committed by the opposite parties by changing land use of the land of the scheduled undertaking/sugar mill which is in the teeth of the judgement of the writ court dated 1.4.2010.
As stated by learned counsel for the applicant, the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Thus, in view of the orders of the Supreme Court, the action taken by the respondents would remain subject to final adjudication of the appeal before the Supreme Court and moreover, any person purchasing the sugar mills in furtherance of any auction conducted by the State Government would be bound by the adjudication. Therefore, the allegations made in this application would not constitute contempt.
For the reasons aforesaid, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 sfa/ (Jayant Banerji, J)