Heard Sri Shyam Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Writ Petition No. 57781 of 2006 filed by the applicant claiming outstanding dues for the contract carried out by him was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.10.2006 directing the opposite parties to decide the representation to be made by the applicant in this regard within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of order by means of a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance of the order, the representation of the petitioner was decided though his claim was not rejected but no payment was made on account of the fact that original invoice was not available in the office of the opposite party. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 12981 of 2008. This Court finding that the claim of the petitioner is not being denied by the respondents but only ground for not making payment is non-availability of the original invoice in the office, vide order dated 7.3.2008 directed the r,espondents to make payment of the outstanding amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
From the pleadings set up by the applicant, the copy of the said order is stated to have been served in the office of the opposite party no. 4 on 19.03.2008. It is further pleaded that whenever the applicant met he was assured by opposite party no. 4 that as soon as funds would be sanctioned, the payment would be made. When the payment was not made, the present contempt application was filed on 03.02.2010 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 07.03.2008 .
On being noticed, the opposite party put in appearance and a Cehque dated 25.03.2010 drawn in favour of the applicant for an amount of Rs.11,17,662/- was handed over to his counsel in Court towards payment of the outstanding dues. The said cheque was accepted by the learned counsel for the applicant reserving his right to raise objection with regard to the claim of 18% interest as the payment was made beyond the period of three months as directed by this Court. Another affidavit of Devendra Singh, Engineer-in-Chief has been filed alleging that the certified copy of the order dated 07.03.2008 was never served earlier as alleged but it was submitted for the first time along with the letter dated 01.02.2010 and the payment has been made through cheque dated 25.03.2010 which has been received by the learned counsel for the applicant on 30.03.2010 i.e. within three months and thus there is no liability of the opposite party to pay any interest.
The applicant has stated on oath in paragraph 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the application that the certified copy of the order was served in the office of the opposite party no. 4 on 19.03.2008. However, there is no proof or evidence filed by him in support of the said application. On the contrary, the opposite party has asserted that the certified copy of the order along with the representation was served for the first time on 01.02.2010. This is a purely disputed question of fact but in the absence of any documentary evidence or proof brought on record by the applicant, it is difficult to believe that he has served certified copy of order as alleged on 19.03.2008 and thereafter waited for almost two years to approach this Court alleging contempt even though payment of heavy amount was involved.
In the alternative, even if the averments made by the applicant that copy of the order was served in the office of the opposite party no. 4 on 19.03.2008 then since vide order dated 07.03.2008 direction was to make payment within a period of three months, the limitation started running after expiry of three months from 19.03.2008, and the present application having been filed beyond the limitation of one year prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is barred by time and thus also is not liable to be entertained.
For the aforesaid facts and discussions, the contempt proceedings is not liable to proceed any further.
The notices are discharged. Let the contempt application be consigned to record.
Order Date :- 5.7.2012 Dcs