Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 18.07.2025 vs Rajesh Kumar Singh on 18 July, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:625
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Cont.Cas(C) No. 21 of 2024
Date of Decision: 18.07.2025
M/s Meghalaya Feed Products
Near CRPF Group Centre, 9th Mile Baridua, Amerigog,
District-Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya-781023
Having its Administrative Office at Prakash Tower,
1st Floor, Opp. Pallavi Motors, G.S. Road, Guwahati-5, Assam
Represented through its Partner Shri Ram Awatar Agarwalla,
R/o 19, Arunodoi Path, Prakash Kunj, Narayan Nagar,
Kumar Para, Guwahati-9, Assam ... Petitioner(s)
- Versus -
1. Rajesh Kumar Singh,
Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry
and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Govt. of India, Udyog Bhawan New Delhi-110011
2. Balamurugan D
Joint Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry
and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Govt. of India, Udyog Bhawan New Delhi-110011
3. Dr. Kajal,
Director, Department for Promotion of Industry
and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Govt. of India, Udyog Bhawan New Delhi-110011
4. Ganesh H. Nikhare,
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department for Promotion of Industry
and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Govt. of India, Udyog Bhawan New Delhi-110011
.... Respondent(s)
_______________________________________________________
Page 1 of 8
2025:MLHC:625
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Dr. B.P. Todi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. P. Das, Adv.
Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. The petitioner by way of the instant application under
Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article
215 of the Constitution of India, has alleged violation of the Judgment
and Order dated 13.10.2023 passed by this Court in MC (WA) No.
43/2023 in WA No. 41/2023 and MC (WA) No. 44/2023 in WA No.
42/2023 and order dated 20.12.2023 passed in MC (WA) No. 56/2023
and MC (WA) No. 59/2023.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was the beneficiary of
a Transport Subsidy Scheme of the Government of India, which granted
subsidy for the transport of raw materials and finished goods to and from
Page 2 of 8
2025:MLHC:625
designated areas with the objective of promoting industrial growth. The
State of Meghalaya falls under the designated ‘Area A’ of the Scheme,
wherein the petitioner operates an industrial unit. In the course of
business, the petitioner was granted subsidies against its claims and on
the non-payment of transport subsidy for two quarters i.e. 01.10.2008 to
31.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009, the writ petitioner had
instituted writ petitions before this Court in 2019, followed by other writ
petitions. Without further dwelling into the details of the earlier orders
passed, the Judgment dated 13.10.2023, which is relevant, and alleged to
have been violated, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, had
directed the respondents to re-verify the rejected portions of the claims
by calling for necessary documents and evidence from the petitioner. The
order also specifically stated that the re-verification should be rational
and meaningful, to be completed within 8 weeks, and if any part of the
claim was to be rejected, cogent reasons were to be given. The
petitioner’s case is that this direction has been violated, and as such
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are to be initiated against
the respondents.
3. Dr. B.P Todi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Das,
learned counsel for the petitioner company has submitted that as per
Para-13 of the Judgment dated 13.10.2023, the respondents were directed
Page 3 of 8
2025:MLHC:625
to verify the rejected parts of the claims for the two periods by calling
for documents and other evidence from the appellant and that if any part
of the claims was to be declined, cogent reasons for such rejections were
to be furnished. It is submitted that the respondent No. 4 after
considerable delay had sent a letter dated 05.02.2024, fixing a virtual
meeting on 12.02.2024 but in the said meeting, the rejected parts in detail
with regard to the dates of the bills of the claims was not informed to the
petitioner, added with the fact that it was not possible to verify
documents and to produce evidence by virtual mode. It is further
submitted that on a request by the petitioner the respondents fixed an in
person meeting on 22.02.2024, and instructed the petitioner to attend the
meeting with detailed documents in order to assess the eligibility of the
claims.
4. Learned Senior counsel submits that in the meeting, the
petitioner sought details about the rejected part of the claims which was
however, not specified by the respondents. It is then submitted that
further requests were made for specification of the details but however,
the respondents by order dated 28.03.2024, rejected the claim of the
petitioner in total violation of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by this
Court. Learned Senior submits that a clear case of contempt has been
made out and the contemnors should be punished in accordance with law.
Page 4 of 8
2025:MLHC:625
5. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M.
Myrchiang, learned counsel for the respondents in reply, has submitted
that for the claim periods in question, in the in-person meeting held on
22.02.2024, details were sought from the petitioner by calling for
documents and other evidence, while giving the petitioner reasonable
opportunity to submit the same as supporting evidence, to re-verify the
rejected part of the claims for the two periods in compliance with the
order dated 13.10.2023. The petitioner it is submitted however, failed to
produce documents and other details, or any evidence to verify the
rejected part of the claims, and were given another opportunity which
was communicated by a letter dated 26.02.2024, calling upon the
petitioner to submit the required documents and supporting evidence by
29.02.2024. The petitioner he submits, instead of sending the required
documents, sent an e-mail dated 29.02.2024, alleging deliberate and
willful intention of the respondents not to comply with the order dated
13.10.2023.
6. Therefore, in these circumstances he submits in compliance
with the order of this Court dated 13.10.2023, the Department issued the
speaking order dated 20.03.2024, in consideration of the fact that the
petitioner company had not complied in a time bound manner as directed
by the Court, and had failed to submit the required documents and
Page 5 of 8
2025:MLHC:625
supporting evidence as per the Transport Subsidy Scheme to enable the
respondents to reconsider the claims. The onus he submits being squarely
on the petitioner, the allegation of violation of the order of this Court is
misplaced, and this contempt application is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering
the confines of contempt jurisdiction, this Court is only to examine as to
whether there has been any willful violation of the Judgment dated
13.10.2023, that would tantamount to the contempt of this Court’s order.
It is noted that the Judgment dated 13.10.2023 had directed the
respondents to re-verify the rejected parts of the claims for the two
periods by calling for documents and other evidence from the appellant.
For the sake of convenience Para-13 of the Judgment dated 13.10.2023,
wherein the aforementioned directions are contained is reproduced
hereinbelow: –
“13. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of and the
orders impugned are modified by directing the
respondents to re-verify the rejected parts of the claims for
the two periods by calling for documents and other
evidence from the appellant. A rational and meaningful
verification should be conducted by the Union and the
entire exercise completed within eight weeks from date. In
the event any part of the claim is to be declined, cogent
reasons for such rejection should be furnished. Needless
to say, that the interest awarded in terms of the Supreme
Court order, as indicated in the Union’s order of August
2, 2019, will apply if any part of the balance claim is
allowed.”
Page 6 of 8
2025:MLHC:625
8. A perusal of the above noted directions shows that this Court
had specifically while directing the respondents to verify the rejected
parts of the claims, had also provided that documents and other evidence
be called from the petitioner, whereafter verification was to be conducted
and cogent reason furnished for any rejection. From the materials on
record and submissions made, it is seen that the Department had
scheduled an in-person meeting on 22.02.2024, vide notice dated
19.02.2024, by calling for documents and other evidence. Thereafter, as
the petitioner failed to produce any evidence or documents in the meeting
that took place on 22.02.2024, the respondents vide letter 26.02.2024,
then granted another opportunity to the petitioner to submit the same by
29.02.2024, which however was replied to by e-mail dated 29.02.2024,
alleging that the respondents were in violation of the order dated
13.10.2023. From the sequence of events in the backdrop of the order
13.10.2023, it is noted that the onus was on the petitioner to bring
forward the required documents and evidence, which was however not
complied with by the petitioner, and as such had resulted in the order
dated 20.03.2024.
9. The law of contempt is well settled and in order to hold a
party guilty of civil contempt, the disobedience must be willful and the
term ‘willful’ connotes deliberate or intentional defiance. In the present
Page 7 of 8
2025:MLHC:625
case, the respondents had initiated the process of re-verification as
directed and provided opportunity to the petitioner to present its case,
which however could not be completed due to inability of the petitioner
to provide the required documents and evidence. As such, it cannot be
held that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the directions issued
by this Court.
10. In the circumstances therefore, no case has been made out
for drawing of contempt proceedings against the respondents and the
instant petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
18.07.2025
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 8 of 8
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2025.07.18 16:21:19 IST
[ad_1]
Source link