A.K Rampal on Behalf of Haryana Telecom Ltd. Vs Sh. D. Suresh,Ias and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

A.K Rampal on Behalf of Haryana Telecom Ltd. Vs Sh. D. Suresh,Ias and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition dismissed as not pressed; rule discharged; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. Respondents to release interest on the delayed disbursal of the amount in terms of the Writ Court order within four weeks; liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek revival of the contempt petition on default, in which event the erring/concerned officer is to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs from his/her own pocket towards litigation expenses on the first date of listing of the revival application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents would release the interest on the delayed disbursal of the amount payable in terms of the Writ Court order (including interest on the EDC amount paid to the petitioner). +1 more

Court's answer

The Court recorded the respondents' counsel's submission that interest on the delayed disbursal of the amount in terms of the Writ Court order shall be released in favour of the petitioner within four weeks, and dismissed the petition on that basis.

Ratio / Principle

The contempt petition is dismissed as not pressed, the petitioner having chosen not to press it in view of the respondents' submission.

Key takeaways

Rule issued in the contempt petition stands discharged.ratio¶19
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio¶20
In case the needful (release of interest as per the undertaking) is not done within the aforementioned period of four weeks, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral), 29.01.2025 — COCP No. 265-2019 (O&M): M/s Haryana Telecom Limited, Rohtak v. Sh.D. Suresh, IAS, CA, HSVP and another. Contempt petition regarding non-release of interest on the delayed disbursal of the amount payable in terms of a Writ Court order (issue of interest on the EDC amount paid to the petitioner). Counsel for the respondents relied on a communication dated 29.01.2025 of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak, and submitted that the interest would be released within four weeks; thereupon counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition. Held: petition dismissed as not pressed; rule discharged; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek revival of the contempt petition if the needful is not done within four weeks, in which eventuality the erring/concerned officer would be liable to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs from his/her own pocket towards litigation expenses on the first date of listing of the revival application.

COCP-265-2019 (O&M) [1]

109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No. 265-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.01.2025

M/s Haryana Telecom Limited, Rohtak ...Petitioner

VERSUS

Sh.D. Suresh, IAS, CA, HSVP and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present : Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocat e for Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advoc a te for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A .G., Haryana.

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon an e- mail/ co m munication dated 29.01.2 0 25 received from the office of Estate O fficer, HUDA, Rohtak, which r eads as under:-

“It is intimated that the issue of payment o f interest on the EDC amount paid to the petitioner wil l be sent to the comp e tent authority for decision. Yo u are requested to a p prise the Hon’ble High Cour t about the same and g et the matter adjourned for fou r weeks, so that needf u l may be done accordingly.”

In view thereof, learned coun s el for the respondents sub m its that the interest on the delayed disbursal of the amount in term s of the Writ C ourt order shall be released in favour of the petitioner wi t hin a period of four weeks from today. 2. In view of the above, le a rned counsel for the petitioner does no t press the present petition.

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.01.30 12:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

COCP-265-2019 (O&M) [2]

Dismissed as not pressed

Rule discharged.

Pending miscellaneous a pplication(s), if any, shall a lso

stand di s posed of.

However, in case the needful is not done within the aforeme n tioned period, as per the u n dertaking, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of c ontempt petition and in that eventuality, the erring/concerned offi c er would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5 0 ,000/- as cost(s) from his/h e r own pocket in favour of the petitioner towards litigation expenses, immediately i.e. on the f irst date of li s ting of revival application.

29.01.2 0 25 ( HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

Whether speaking/reason e d ? Yes/No Whether Reportable ? Yes/No

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.01.30 12:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document