Pursuant to order dated 26.4.2010, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are present.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed three rejoinder affidavits, which are taken on record.
Further, Sri P.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has filed short counter affidavits on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.5. The original record, relating to the proceedings deciding the objection of the applicant against the seizure and for release of goods has also been produced and perused by the Court. There is serious objection raised by the opposite party that the order dated 15.4.2009 was never filed by the applicant before the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 prior to 9.12.2009 or 17.12.2009, after the seized goods had been disposed of and after the date on which, the order for confiscation was passed, after rejecting the objections of the applicant.
This Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.18085 of 2009 filed by the applicant vide order dated 15.4.2009 had provided that the objections filed by the applicant on 16.3.2009 would be decided before proceeding to auction the seized fertilizers. However, it further provided that in case auction has already been held, the question of confiscation pursuant to the reply filed by the applicant would be decided.
This contempt application was filed with the allegation that despite service of the orders of the Division Bench dated 15.4.2009 and 20.4.2009, the opposite parties have disposed of the goods on 05/08.12.2009 and thereafter passed an order on 17.12.2009 confiscating the goods after rejecting the objection. According to the applicant, this exercise was in the teeth of the direction issued by this Court.
On the other hand, as already stated above, the stand of the opposite party consistently is that the order dated 15.4.2009 was never served upon the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and it was only after the goods had been disposed of and the objection of the applicant had been decided and the goods had been confiscated that the order was produced.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, the Court is of the opinion that there is no material on record to establish that the order dated 15.4.2009 had been served upon the opposite parties prior to 9.12.2009 or 17.12.2009, i.e., prior to the disposal of the goods, which is admitted to have taken place on 8.12.2009.
In view of the above circumstances and the applicant having failed to establish the service of the order of the Writ Court willful disobedience of the order cannot be alleged. Accordingly, notices are discharged. Application is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 SFH