1. The applicant in the contempt petition would state as follows:-
a. The applicant filed W.P.No.9210 of 2006 challenging the order of the second respondent, the National Highways Authority of India in its proceedings dated 22.03.2006 whereby the second respondent sought to recover the arrears of rent due to Tiruvottriyur Municipality. This Court was pleased to pass an order on 03.04.2006, directing the applicant herein to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in favour of the National Highways Authority of India. The bank guarantee so given was ordered to be kept alive till the Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water supply passes order determining the rent payable for the premises let out by Tiruvottiyur Municipality. The impugned communication dated 22.03.2006 signed by the National Highways Authority of India and sent to the applicant herein was ordered to be kept in abeyance.
b. Pursuant to the above said direction of this Court, the applicant furnished a bank guarantee for Rs.20 lakhs on 12.04.2006 and kept the same alive till the date of arbitrary encashment made by the second respondent on 24.12.2007. The applicant approached the State Government for determination of rent inspite of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.9210 of 2006 dated 03.04.2006. The first respondent Chennai-Ennore Port Road Co. Ltd., passed an order dated 22.08.2007 directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.85.7 lakhs towards the rent for 36 months on or before 29.08.2007 with a threat to encash bank guarantee furnished by the applicant towards Performance Security. The said order was passed by the 1st respondent in blatant violation of the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, the same would amount to contempt of the orders passed by this Court.
c. The applicant again filed W.P.No.28450 of 2007 challenging the first respondent's order dated 22.08.2007. The impugned order dated 22.8.2007 passed by the first respondent was stayed by this Court. Even if there was no such order of stay granted subsequently by this Court, the order originally passed by this Court on 3.4.2006 is still in force and has to be obeyed. No attempt can be made to recover the amount by any of the parties till the rent is fixed as aforesaid. The interim order passed by this Court in the subsequent W.P.No.28450 of 2007 directing the applicant to renew the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,45,71,272/-, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.62,50,000/- within ten days is the subject matter of the modification petition filed by the petitioner in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in the subsequent writ petition.
d. The applicant sent communications to the first and second respondents not to invoke the bank guarantee as they were bound by the earlier orders of this court in W.P.No.9210 of 2006. Inspite of the communications sent by the applicant to the respondents, they have willfully and deliberately encashed the bank guarantees for Rs.61,42,818/- furnished towards retention money and Rs.20,00,000/- furnished in obedience to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9210 of 2006 dated 3.4.2006. With the aforesaid pleadings the applicant prayed for punishing the respondents 1 and 2 and also for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to re-deposit the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.61,42,818/-.
2. The first respondent has contended in the counter as follows:
At the outset, the first respondent tenders unconditional apology in case this Court comes to a conclusion that a contempt was committed by him. There was absolutely no violation of any of the orders passed by this Court in the writ proceedings. The applicant has filed the contempt application with a mala fide intention. The bank guarantee came to be encashed only after the interim order passed by this Court on 28.08.2007 was automatically vacated for non-compliance of the conditional order passed by this Court. Therefore, the first respondent seeks to purge him from contempt.
3. Averments found in the counter filed by the second respondent read as follows:
a. The second respondent at the outset tenders unconditional apology in case this Court comes to a conclusion that a contempt was committed by him. There was absolutely no violation of any of the orders passed by this Court in the writ proceedings. An agreement was entered into between the first respondent Chennai-Ennore Port Road Co. Ltd., a special purpose vehicle floated by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the applicant for executing sea protection works in Ennore Expressway in Chennai. For the purpose of putting up site office and Weigh Bridge and also for stock piling of stones, the vacant premises of Tiruvottriyur Municipality admeasuring 8.57 acres was agreed to be given to Tamilnadu Road Development Company Limited, the Managing Associate of the second respondent let out to the applicant as per the agreement entered into between the applicant and Tamilnadu Road Development Company Ltd., on 9.7.2003.
b. The applicant agreed to pay monthly rent as fixed by Tiruvottriyur Municipality/Government of Tamilnadu. Demand letters were received from the Commissioner, Tiruvottriyur Municipality, claiming rents including arrears to the tune of Rs.70,78,580/-. The claim made by the second respondent on 22.3.2006 became the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.No.9210 of 2006 filed by the applicant. The applicant furnished bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and complied with the conditional order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition on 2.4.2006. The first respondent through its letter dated 22.08.2007 had only directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.85.7 lakhs towards the rental dues. But the applicant challenged the aforesaid proceedings in W.P.No.28450 of 2007.
c. The interim Order already passed in the said writ petition was extended subject to the condition that the applicant should renew the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,45,71,272/-, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.62,50,000/- within ten days failing which the interim order already passed would stand vacated automatically. The applicant extended the bank guarantee only for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 20.12.2007 but failed to comply with the rest of the conditions, and hence the respondents encashed the bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.61,42,818/- which were in force as on that date. It is submitted that the said act was not in violation of any Court order but was in compliance with the order dated 13.12.2007 passed in M.P.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2007 in W.P.No.28450 of 2007. The earlier order passed on 3.4.2006 in W.P.No.9210 of 2006 got merged with the subsequent interim order passed by this Court on 3.12.2007 in W.P.No.28450 of 2007. Therefore, it is contended that there was no willful disobedience of the orders of this Court and that therefore the respondents may be purged from contempt.
4. In the reply filed to the counter affidavit, the applicant has contended that the respondents were already aware that final fixation of rent was done by the Government even on the date of invocation of the bank guarantee. The representations made by the applicant before the Government for fixing the rent are yet to be disposed of, it has been contended. The applicant reiterated that the contemnors have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court.
5. The learned Senior Counsel Thiru K. Alagirisamy appearing for the applicant would contend that this Court has made clear in the order passed in W.P.No.9210 of 2006 that the recovery proceedings shall not be initiated by the respondents till the Government determines the monthly rent payable by the applicant. Despite such a clear cut direction, the first respondent Chennai-Ennore Port Road Co. Ltd., issued proceedings directing the applicant to pay the arrears of rent on or before 29.8.2007 failing which the bank guarantee towards performance security and the other bank guarantees given by the applicant would be encashed. It is his submission that such a proceeding issued by the first respondent is in total violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9210 of 2006 dated 3.4.2006. He would further submit that even if the applicant had not obtained any order of stay of the proceedings dated 22.8.2007 passed by the first respondent, the order already passed by this Court in W.P.No.9210 of 2006 is still in force and therefore the invocation of the bank guarantee given in compliance with the earlier order passed by this Court is in total violations of the order passed by this Court on 13.12.2007 in W.P.No.28450 of 2007 which is the subject matter of the modification petition moved by the applicant. Inspite of the fact that the applicant has specifically brought to the notice of the respondents about the subsistence of the order already passed by this Court on 3.4.2006 and requested them not to proceed with the recovery proceedings, the respondents chose to encash the bank guarantees, one given for performance of the contract and another one given in compliance with the orders of this Court. The second respondent has admitted in W.P.No.28450 of 2007, that final fixation of the rent had not yet been done by the Government. The plea that the respondents were not aware of the fact that the Government of Tamilnadu had not fixed monthly rent for the vacant site used by the applicant does not hold water. Therefore, he would submit that the respondents have committed gross contempt.
6. The learned Additional Solicitor General Sri.M. Ravindran, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would vehemently submit that even as per the order passed by this Court in w.P.No.9120 of 2006, the respondents were directed not to recover the rental dues in the running bills. There was no clear cut direction by this Court that the National Highways Authority of India shall not take any sort of recovery proceedings for collecting the rental arrears from the applicant till the Government fixes monthly rent. Referring to the letter shot off by Tamilnadu Road Development Company Limited to the second respondent herein he would submit that the second respondent was specifically informed that the Government had already fixed monthly rent and based on such a fixation, the Commissioner, Tiruvottriyur Municipality directed them to pay the arrears of rent. It is his submission that the second respondent was under the impression that the Government had in fact passed order fixing the monthly rent payable by the applicant herein. He would further submit that a new cause of action arose in the aftermath of the impugned order dated 22.8.2007 passed by the second respondent based on the communication received from the Tamilnadu Road Development Company Limited. It is his further submission that the conditional order passed in the writ petition which arose out of a fresh cause of action was not fully complied with by the applicant within the deadline fixed by the Court. Therefore, the respondents initiative to invoke the bank guarantee was not at all hit by the order of stay passed by this Court. After the expiry of the deadline fixed by the Court they rightly invoked the bank guarantees. It is his further submission that the proposal to invoke the bank guarantee was not the subject matter of the earlier writ petition filed by the applicant in W.P.No.9210 of 2006. The proposal to invoke bank guarantee was the subject matter of the subsequent writ petition. Inasmuch as the interim order already passed by this Court was not in vogue, the bank guarantee was rightly invoked, it is submitted. He would further submit that the communication sent by the applicant requesting the respondents not to invoke the bank guarantee or the petition filed seeking modification of the order passed by this Court would be of no consequence, inasmuch as there is no order restraining the respondents from invoking the bank guarantee.
7. The National Highways Authority of India, the second respondent herein, as per the impugned proceedings dated 22.3.2006, directed the applicant herein to pay arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.70,77,580/-. The applicant has also been cautioned thereunder that the said amount would be recovered from the applicant's forthcoming bills. There was no threat to invoke any bank guarantee given by the applicant in the aforesaid proceedings. As per the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9210 of 2006 dated 3.4.2006 the applicant was directed to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-in favour of the National Highways Authority of India in order to safe guard the interest of Tiruvottriyur Municipality. The bank guarantee was directed to be kept alive till the commissioner & Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply passes an order determining the rent payable by the applicant. With the aforesaid direction the impugned order dated 23.3.2006 passed by t he National Highways Authority of India was ordered to be kept in abeyance.
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General Sri.M. Ravindran that there was no clear cut directions to the respondents in the aforesaid order that they shall not plunge into any recovery proceedings. When the second respondent proposed to recover the amount from the forthcoming bills, this Court directed as per the aforesaid order that the said proceedings should be kept in abeyance. Only when there is a clear direction to do or not to do a particular act a person who fails to adhere to the order of the Court would be hauled up in a contempt proceeding. When there is no clear directions to the respondents that they shall not venture to issue any proceedings to recover rental arrears and their proceeding to recover rental arrears from the running bills alone was stayed, in the considered opinion of the Court, the respondents have not committed any contempt of the orders passed by this Court on 3.4.2006.
9. Tamilnadu Road Development Company Ltd., has written a letter dated 31.7.2007 to the National Highways Authority of India informing them specifically that the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Municipal Administration and Water supply had already fixed a monthly rent and the Commissioner, Tiruvottriyur Municipality had directed the respondents (TNRDC) to pay the arrears of rent only based on such fixation of the rent by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Municipal Administration and Water Supply.
10. It is rightly contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the National Highways Authority of India was completely guided by such a communication received from the Tamilnadu Road Development Company Limited, which is not one of the parties to the contempt proceedings and issued the impugned order dated 22.8.2007 calling upon the applicant to pay the arrears of rent failing which the respondents would be forced to encash the bank guarantee given for performance security and also the bank guarantee given as per the order of this Court passed earlier. Of course, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant brings to the notice of the Court that the counter filed by the respondents in W.P.No.28450 of 2007 wherein they have admitted that finalisation of rent payable by the applicant was pending with the Government. There is no admission by the respondents that even prior to the filing of W.P.No.28450 of 2007, they were aware of the fact that the Government had not passed any final orders fixing the monthly rent payable by the applicant herein. It is found that the impugned order dated 22.8.2007 had been passed by the first respondent herein only based on the information furnished by the Tamilnadu Road Development Company Limited. I find that there was no disobedience shown by the first respondent in passing the aforesaid impugned order.
11. It is true that the bank guarantee for Rs.20,00,000/- given by the applicant, pursuant to the orders of this Court passed earlier and the bank guarantee for Rs.62,50,000/- towards performance security were admittedly encashed by the second respondent on 24.12.2007. It is to be analysed whether such an act of the respondents would amount to contempt of Court.
12. As already pointed out by this Court, the impugned order dated 22.8.2007 was passed by the second respondent thoroughly guided by the information furnished by the Tamilnadu Road Development Company Limited. It is to be noted that the Tamilnadu Road Development Company Limited is not one of the parties to the contempt proceedings initiated by the applicant. The threat to invoke bank guarantees given by the applicant was put in challenge in a fresh writ petition filed by the applicant in W.P.No.28450 of 2007. This Court extended the interim order already passed subject to the condition that the petitioner should renew the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,45,71,272/-, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.62,50,000/- within ten days failing which the interim order already granted shall stand automatically vacated.
13. There is no dispute to the fact that the applicant having renewed the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, failed to comply with the entire conditions imposed by this Court while extending the interim order already passed in W.P.No.28450 of 2007. The order passed on 13.12.2007 stood automatically vacated on 23.12.2007 inasmuch as the applicant admittedly had not complied with the directions of this Court to enjoy the extension of the interim order passed by this Court. The fact remains that the respondents chose to invoke bank guarantees and encashed the same on 24.12.2007, despite the hue and cry raised by the applicant not to invoke the bank guarantee as an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9120 of 2006 was staring at the respondents. It was also informed to the respondents that a modification petition also was pending at the instance of the applicant.
14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General Sri.M. Ravindran, a communication was sent by the applicant requesting the respondents not to invoke bank guarantees and the pendency of the modification petition would be of no consequence. On a fresh cause of action arisen on account of the impugned order passed by the second respondent calling upon the applicant to pay the arrears or to face the invocation of the bank guarantee, the W.P.No.28450 of 2007 was filed by the applicant. He invited an interim order not to invoke the bank guarantee on certain conditions. Those conditions imposed by this Court were not complied with. The proposal to invoke the bank guarantee was not the cause of action for filing the earlier W.P.9210 of 2006, whereas the present W.P.No.28450 of 2007 was filed on the fresh cause of action threatening the applicant with invocation of the bank guarantee by respondent. Therefore, the cause of action which has given rise to the present writ petition has nothing to do with the cause of action arisen for filing earlier case in W.P.No.9210 of 2006. The respondents were restrained from invoking the bank guarantees on certain conditions that should be complied with by the applicant. When the applicant failed to comply with those conditions, the respondents were at liberty to invoke the bank guarantees.
15. In case the applicant had obtained an order form this Court that the respondents should not initiate any rent recovery proceedings till the Government fixes the rent for the premises let out by the Tiruvottriyur Municipality, the applicant may have a case. As already pointed out by this Court, the proceedings initiated by the respondents to recover the rental arrears in the running bills alone was stayed. There was no blanket order prohibiting the respondents to initiate any sort of rental recovery proceedings. If at all the respondents have started to recover the rental arrears in the running bills, then they would be committing contempt of Court. The impugned order dated 22.8.2007 was also passed by the second respondent innocuously based on the communication sent by the Tamilnadu Road Development Company Ltd. It is found that there was no disobedience much less willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.9210 of 2006 and W.P.No.28450 of 2007. There is no merit in the contempt petition.
16. In view of the above, the contempt petition filed by the applicant stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
ggs