Nagaland State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. v. V.K. Gupta & Ors.

14. While the appeal before the CIC was pending, the South Eastern Railway, vide letter dated 01.08.2011, disclosed information confirming that the Railway Board had made budgetary provisions for the differential payments to the petitioner and similarly placed 5 RTI 6 CIC suppliers since 2003. The financial implications were computed as follows:

15. Finally, aggrieved by the inactions of the respondents/Railway Board, the petitioner filed the present petitions within the prescribed period of limitation.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AT THE BAR

16. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has urged that the petitioner in CC(C) 838/2012 i.e., Nagaland State Cooperative Marketing & Consumers Federations, has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,22,75,118/-; whereas the petitioner in CC(C) 840/2012 i.e., Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd was paid a sum of Rs.1,35,43,810/- towards the cost of the purchase of sleepers including interest @ 6% as per the impugned judgment. It is submitted that as far as the petitioner in CC(C) 842/2012 i.e., Gujrat State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. is concerned, nothing has been paid to them since the said corporation has not filed the complete documents made available to them. The respondent No. 3 further stated that in case of MMTC, the 24th SPC rates were applied strictly to only those release orders which were issued by Railway Board after 01.11.1993. It was urged that for release orders issued before 01.11.1993, 23rd SPC rates were applied when the actual supplies against such release orders were made after 01.11.1993.

17. In rejoinder, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents/contemnors at this stage, cannot turn around and bring any new plea, in view of the fact that all the issues raised by the respondents/contemnors with respect to payment to the petitioners as per their entitlement, have finally been put to rest vide order dated 15.04.2010 in W.P. (C) 2815/1999. It was further urged that the Single Judge vide review order dated 08.03.2011 has clarified the further period of calculation of the amount payable and awarded the interest thereupon to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, it was contended that the respondents/contemnors are attempting to mislead this Court by placing wrong facts and giving wrong interpretations to orders and judgments passed by this Court.

18. Lastly, it was urged that the respondents/contemnors have paid the amount on the quantity for which release orders were issued after 01.11.1993 as per the general policy, however, the respondent/contemnors have not complied with the specific direction given by the Single Judge and the Division Bench for the payment of 24th SPC on the quantities for which though the Release Orders were issued prior to 01.11.1993 but which quantity could not be inspected by the respondents/Railways upto 31.03.1994.

ANALYSIS & DECISION:

19. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties at the Bar. I have also perused the relevant record of the case.

20. At the outset, undoubtedly in terms of the resolution passed in the meeting held on 08.11.1993 by the 24th SPC, a 30% enhancement over the rates of 23rd SPC were recommended for supply of sal wood sleepers for which release orders were issued after 01.11.1993. However, it is also manifest that certain representations were made by MMTC and MPEX to apply the rates recommended by the 24th SPC with relation to the supplies that were kept ready but either the release orders were not issued in time or deliveries were not taken because the Railways failed to inspect the quantities within two months of the issuance of the release orders.

21. It is borne from the record that on finding that there was no fault on the part of the suppliers with respect to the belated deliveries, the said representations were accepted, thereby making applicable the recommendations of 24th SPC to the release orders even passed prior to 01.11.1993 and supplies effected till 31.03.1994. The said position is exemplified on reading of paragraph (3.6) of the initial judgment dated 15.04.2010 of this Court, wherein it was espoused by the Railways that although there was a general policy applicable on supplies made after 31.01.1994, at the same time it was resolved that enhanced rates as recommended by 24th SPC would be paid for the period prior thereto as well for the blemishes on the part of the respondent/Railways. In other words, since differential rates were found to be discriminatory vis-à-vis MPEX, it was later clarified by advancing the cut-off date for supplies made in the case of MPEX prior to 01.11.1993 as well.

22. It was in the teeth of the aforesaid disposition that the learned Single Judge in the Judgment/order dated 15.04.2010 in the three writ petitions referred hereinabove, observed that when MMTC and MPEX had been accorded benefits in relation to release orders passed prior to 01.11.1993 irrespective of the fact that whether the release order was issued prior to such date or thereafter, the rates recommended by the 24th SPC were made applicable including the factor of supplies not inspected by the respondent/Railways upto 31.03.1994. This position was exemplified by the learned Single Judge in the review filed by the petitioners, which was decided vide order dated 08.03.2011, wherein the following observations were made:

Through LRs v. Moti Lal (Dead) Through LRs (2009) 14 SCC 663 to urge that no ground is made out for review of the order dated 15th April 2010. However, for the reasons explained, this Court considers it appropriate to recall the order dated 15th April 2010 to the above extent.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that for the supply of sleepers offered to the Railways for inspection by each of the Petitioners upto 31st March 1994, and in respect of the quantities which were not inspected and passed for payment by the Railways up to 31st January 1994, payment has to be made to each of the Petitioners by the Railways at the rates recommended by the 24th SPC.

10. There was also a prayer made by the Petitioners in the writ petition that the above sums should be directed to be paid with interest @ 24% per annum. This was also overlooked by this Court. Mr. Sinha opposes this prayer and points out that no such interest was paid to the MMTC. The difference is that while the MMTC was paid the sums due to it in the year 1995 itself, the Petitioners had to wait till 2010 to be granted similar relief. In the circumstances, it is directed that the Petitioners will each be paid the above sums within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt by the Railways of a certified copy of this order together with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the respective date of filing of the writ petition till the date of payment.

11. The review petitions are accordingly disposed of.” {Bold portions emphasized}

23. The said directions eventually came to be approved in the LPA No. 470/2011 wherein the Division Bench of this Court made the following observations: “Learned counsel for the appellant fairly stated that whatever benefits have been extended to MMTC and MPEC the respondent has been extended the said benefit and if any extra benefits have been given to the MMTC and MPEC, the same shall be extended to the respondent. We will be failing in our duty, if we do not note a submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that MMTC and MPEC have been paid extra sum on the basis of the recommendations made by the MOEF and the respondents have also been endowed the benefit of similar recommendation and if Railway administration has accepted one set of recommendation and made the payment, it is bound to follow the concept of parity. Needless to emphasis the said concept of parity shall be adhered to by the appellant. Benefits extended to MMTC and MPEC will be extended to the respondents. Accordingly, it is directed that the computation shall be carried out within a period of three months and be paid. The rate of interest as directed by the learned Single Judge shall remain in vogue” {Bold portions emphasized}

24. During the course of proceedings, a tabular depiction was filed on behalf of the petitioners so as to show the supplies made by the various agencies, which is reproduced hereinunder:

25. The aforesaid chart is not disputed by the respondents. The position of the supplies effected by the petitioners i.e., Nagaland Corporation, Maharashtra Corporation and Gujarat Corporation respectively are indicated vide Serial No. 1, 6 and 7, that would go on to suggest vide column no. (5), (6) & (7) the supplies were made but not inspected till 31.03.1994. Thus, in view of the benefits accorded to MMTC & MPEC for supplies not inspected till such date and even supplies effected after such date i.e., 31.03.1994, irrespective of release orders issued prior to 01.11.1993 or thereafter, on grounds of parity payment, have to be made to the petitioners in terms of recommendations of 24th SPC.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the stand of the respondents that recommendations of 24th SPC were not appliable to release orders issued up to 01.11.1993 cannot be accepted. The payment by the Respondents, as claimed, is not in full compliance with the Court’s order, since it does not include the quantities for which release orders were issued before 01.11.1993 but remained uninspected. The Respondents’ unilateral modification of the scope of payment amounts to an attempt to dilute and frustrate the implementation of the Court's judgment.

27. At the cost of repetition, evidently MMTC and MPEX were given the benefit of the 24th SPC rates for their entire uninspected quantity, irrespective of the date of the release orders. This Court had already established that the petitioners were similarly placed and entitled to identical treatment. The refusal of the respondents to grant the petitioners the same benefits, despite a judicial determination affirming such entitlement, constitutes deliberate non-compliance.

28. At this juncture, it may be pointed out that the South Eastern Railway’s disclosure under the RTI Act revealed that budgetary provisions for the payment of differential amounts have been made since 2003. This directly contradicts the Respondents’ contention that financial constraints or policy considerations prevented compliance. The deliberate withholding of this information from the petitioner further indicates bad faith on the part of the respondents.

FINAL DIRECTIONS

27. Unhesitatingly, the respondents have flouted the repeated directions of this Court. Hence, the respondents are held guilty of committing contempt of the directions of this Court dated 15.04.2010 as modified vide order dated 08.03.2011 by the learned Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No. 470/2010 vide order dated 08.08.2011.

28. In order to enable the respondents to purge themselves of this contempt, they are directed to make a fresh computation for the payment of the supplies in accordance with the recommendations of 24th SPC with regard to release orders which were issued prior to 01.11.1993 or thereafter but supplies of which were effected up to 31.03.1994 which could not be inspected, within a period of six weeks from today besides working out simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the respective writ petitions till the date of payment. The said payments be made to the petitioners within such period of six weeks, failing which the respondents shall appear before this Court through video conferencing at 11.30 a.m. on 21.04.2025 and show as to why they should not be punished and sentenced in accordance with law.

29. The present contempt petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. MARCH 03, 2025