1. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have flouted the order dated 11.07.2019, passed by this Court and
turned down petitioner's request of recording its land in their (RIICO's) record in the guise of pending litigation before the Gujarat and Bombay High
Court.
2. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the order passed by this Court so also the order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)
(Annex.9 of the writ petition) and pointed out that before the DRT, the RIICO had clearly stated that Enforcement (2 of 4) [WCP-554/2020]
Directorate has given a clean chit. According to Mr. Bhoot, had there been any other impediment in recording the land in petitioner's name, they ought
to have brought the same to the notice of the DRT.
3. According to learned counsel the action of RIICO in taking shelter of pending litigation is nothing but an attempt to ensure that the order passed by
this Court and DRT are not complied with.
4. It will be apt to reproduce relevant part of the order dated 11.07.2019, passed by this Court, non-compliance whereof has been alleged.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset makes a limited submission that the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the
representation of the petitioner, while taking into consideration Annexure-9.
2. In light of such limited submission, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner, while keeping into consideration the Annexure-9, by passing a speaking order within a period of 30 days from today, strictly in accordance
with law.
3. Stay Petition No.9910/2019 also stands disposed of accordingly.
5. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant extract of the order of DRT, as well:-
............ Now coming to the issue of entering name into the record of RIICO, once the dues as informed by the RIICO have been paid by the
purchaser/owner and accepted by the RIICO and (3 of 4) [WCP-554/2020] also property has been sold by the Court following due procedure of law,
RIICO cannot deny the entry of name in its record. Doubt over Enforcement Directorate attachment has also been duly cleared by the CH bank as
conveyed to the RIICO through advocate vide their letter dated 22.03.2019. With regard to issue of title in the record or RIICO, it may be due to
change in the nomenclature of the said company at some stage after the allotment of said plot/property. Thus, it is directed that RIICO will enter name
of the purchaser namely M/s Maharani Textiles & Handicrafts, a Partnership Firm, through partners, in its record within three weeks. Compliance
Report be filed on the next date.
6. Having considered the submissions so made by learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court
finds that the order dated 29.03.2019, passed by the DRT, does not talk about any pending litigation before the Gujarat and the Bombay High Court.
The DRT, while passing the order, was concerned and apprised only about the clean chit by the Enforcement Directorate.
7. Technically there may be some substance in what has been contended by the learned counsel, but since the order passed by the DRT, simply deals
with the clearance from Enforcement Directorate, the respondent RIICO may perhaps be justified in refusing to enter petitioner's name in the teeth of
the pending litigation before the Gujarat and the Bombay High Court.
8. But then by way of order dated 11.07.2019, this Court had simply directed to consider and decide petitioner's representation in light of order dated
29.03.2019 of the DRT, by passing a (4 of 4) [WCP-554/2020] speaking order. RIICO has passed an order and given out reasons. If they are in any
manner contrary to the direction issued by the DRT, petitioner is supposed to take his remedies against such decision. The communication dated
17.06.2020 has to be examined on its own merit.
9. Contempt jurisdiction is not meant to armtwist the officer of the State to cough up the desired orders.
10. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any willful disobedience on the part of the respondent RIICO.
11. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to initiate proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
12. The contempt petition is, thus, dismissed.
13. Needless to observe that dismissal of the present contempt petition will not eclipse petitioner's right of challenging the communication dated
17.06.2020 or assert its right, in accordance with law.
14. Any observation made herein will obviously not come in petitioner's way before DRT or any other forum, while it seeks redressal of its grievance.
