Rupa And Co. Limited vs Firhad Hakim

2025 INSC 245 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5517-5519 of 2024)

RUPA AND CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

FIRHAD HAKIM AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Shri Nalin Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, learned counsel

for respondent No.7 and Shri Kartikeya Bhatt, learned

counsel appearing for the officers of the West Bengal Housing

Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short,

‘HIDCO’).

3. At the outset, Ms. Bhattacharjee submits that the Chief Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.02.19 14:09:59 IST Secretary, West Bengal has since changed and cause title Reason:

may be amended accordingly.

1

4. We permit the appellants to forthwith amend the cause

title so as to change the name of Respondent No.7 (Chief

Secretary, West Bengal).

5. These appeals raise a very serious question about

maintaining the dignity and authority of the High Court. The

issue raised is as to whether the High Court should act

leniently in matters where an issue with regard to the

obedience of its mandamus is concerned.

6. Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for respondent No.7

vehemently opposes the petition. She submits that the

appeals are against an interlocutory order and the contempt

petitions are still pending before the High Court and as such,

this Court should not interfere in the present proceedings.

Ms. Bhattacharjee further submits that the State

Government is willing to abide by the orders of the High

Court. However, the only decision is to direct the appellants

to pay the market rate so as to balance the equities.

7. Shri Kartikey Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 submits that insofar

as the said respondents are concerned, they are officers of

HIDCO. It is submitted that they could not have conveyed the 2 land unless there was a permission from the State

Government. It is therefore submitted that there is no cause

of action to proceed against the said respondents. It is lastly

submitted that if the State Government directs the said

respondents to comply with the orders of the Court, they are

bound to do so.

8. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are

as under:

8.1 In a response to an offer made by the appellants herein,

the respondent(s)/HIDCO by its letter dated 6th April 2011

promised to convey to them on freehold basis a piece of land

bearing Plot No.IIE/17 in Jyoti Basu Nagar also known as

New Town, Kolkata. By the said letter dated 6th April 2011,

HIDCO had agreed to convey the land to the appellants on

freehold basis @ Rs.13.364 lakhs per cottah aggregating to

Rs.4,00,92,000/-. According to the said letter, the earnest

money of 25% aggregating to Rs.1,00,23,000/- was to be

paid within 30 days from the said letter followed by the

payment of the balance amount of Rs.3,00,69,000/- within a

period of 60 days thereafter. Accordingly, the appellants had

deposited the entire amount of Rs.4,00,92,000/-.

3 8.2 On 24th August 2012, HIDCO addressed a letter to the

appellants stating that the earlier allotment was done during

the period when Model Code of Conduct was in place on

account of West Bengal Assembly General Elections, 2011.

The said letter stated that due to those circumstances, the

decision of allotment was reviewed. It was decided that the

allotment would not be on a freehold basis but on leasehold

basis for 99 years and the sale price was to be treated as a

lease premium.

8.3 The said letter was responded by the appellants on 16 th

November 2012 on various grounds. It was submitted that

the Model Code of Conduct did not forbid transfer of land by

HIDCO or any other Government company. It was also stated

that the effect of the grant of lease for 99 years and the sale

was the same, inasmuch as both were transfers under the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The appellants therefore

requested HIDCO to revoke their letter dated 24th August

2012.

8.4 On 12th October 2012, HIDCO forwarded a draft deed of

lease to the appellants asking them to execute the same. It

appears that there were certain correspondences between the

4 appellants and HIDCO, which took place thereafter. After

some time, the Government came up with a land allotment

policy on 26th December 2012. On coming into effect of the

said policy, a letter was addressed by HIDCO to the

appellants on 14th January 2013 stating that in view of the

change in policy, there would be certain changes in the

proposed lease deed.

8.5 Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed a writ petition

before the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court

challenging the said cancellation of allotment. The learned

Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dismissed the said

petition. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached

the Division Bench of the High Court by way of First

Miscellaneous Appeal No.299 of 2019. The said appeal was

decided on 10th February 2020. In the appeal, a specific

objection was taken by the respondent/State as well as

HIDCO that the writ petition as well as the appeal were not

tenable on account of the availability of an alternate remedy.

However, the Division Bench of the High Court found that if

an action was vitiated by arbitrariness, unreasonableness

and/or mala fides, the High Court was very well entitled to

5 consider the issue in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India and decide the same on the

basis of evidence given in affidavits. The Division Bench of

the High Court therefore found that the case of the

appellants fit into that criteria, inasmuch as the action of the

respondents smacks of violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the High Court

therefore in unequivocal terms held that the action was

arbitrary and therefore set aside the same. The appeal was

allowed in terms of prayer clause (g), which reads thus:

“(g) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus and/or order or orders and/or direction or directions of like nature commanding the respondents to forthwith execute and register the deed of sale/conveyance for sale of 30 cottahs of land bearing Plot No. 11E/17 within sub-CBD of AA-IID of New Town, Kolkata in favour of the petitioner No. 1 on freehold basis in terms of the letter of allotment being No. M-

1343/2010 dated 6 th April, 2011 being annexure “P-1” hereto;”

8.6 It is relevant to note that a special leave petition was

filed by HIDCO before this Court challenging the judgment

and order of the Division Bench, which came to be rejected

by this Court vide order dated 19th July 2021.

8.7 Alleging non-compliance thereof, the appellants filed

contempt petition being CPAN No.384 of 2021 before the 6 Division Bench of the High Court. In the said contempt

petition, vide order dated 6th May 2022, the Division Bench of

the High Court specifically recorded the submission of the

counsel for the State whereby he submitted that the order

passed by the High Court has to be complied with. The

Division Bench of the High Court therefore made it clear that

if a compliance report was not forthcoming on the returnable

date, the Court will initiate contempt proceedings against the

alleged contemnors by issuance of a formal rule. When the

matter was listed before the Division Bench of the High Court

on 17th June 2022, the High Court was informed that the

matter was referred to the Cabinet on 31st August 2022 and

unless a formal approval is received thereon, the earlier order

could not be complied with. The High Court, after recording

that, directed the Registrar General of the High Court to send

a copy of the order dated 17th June 2022 to the Chief

Secretary so as to enable him to resolve the issue before the

adjourned date of the contempt petition.

8.8 It appears that thereafter on 12th December 2022, the

General Manager, Commercial of HIDCO informed the

appellants that in compliance with the directions issued by

7 the Division Bench of the High Court, the Cabinet, in its

meeting held on 25th November 2022, has decided to convey

the said plot to the appellants at the then market value, i.e.

Rs.12,51,47,722/-. Since the appellants had already paid a

sum of Rs. 4,00,92,000/-, they were directed to pay the

balance amount of Rs.8,50,55,722/-. Aggrieved thereby, the

appellants filed another contempt petition being CPAN No.88

of 2023 before the High Court. On 6th December 2023, the

High Court was informed by the learned Additional

Government Pleader that expeditious steps have been

initiated to comply with the order of the High Court. It will

be relevant to refer to the following paragraph of the order

dated 6th December 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court, which reads thus:-

“We make it absolutely clear that in the absence of compliance, in addition to any other order that the court may pass in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the court may consider appointing a Receiver or Special Officer to execute the necessary conveyance to comply with its order.”

8.9 An interesting turn takes place thereafter. When the

very same contempt petition was listed before the High Court

on 9th February 2024, the High Court vide impugned order

observed that, considering the submission of the parties it 8 would be appropriate that the matter is settled through

mediation. It, accordingly, appointed a former Judge of the

High Court as a Mediator. It will be relevant to note that the

said proposal for mediation was specifically opposed by the

learned counsel for the appellants. Aggrieved by the same,

the appellants have filed the present appeals by way of

special leave.

9. We find that the approach of the High Court in passing

the impugned order is totally untenable. When the High

Court itself, on more than one occasions in the contempt

proceedings, had found that the State was bound to comply

with the writ of mandamus issued by it vide judgment and

order dared 10th February 2020 and had also issued notice to

the Chief Secretary of the State for complying with the

directions issued by it, it could not have referred the matter

for mediation. It is further to be noted that mediation has to

be by the consent of both the parties. Mediation cannot be

thrusted upon either of the parties. The learned Division

Bench of the High Court in the present case, in spite of the

resistance of the learned counsel for the appellants herein,

only on the basis of the statement of the learned Advocate

9 General appearing in the matter whereby it was submitted

that the State was willing to offer the appellants an

alternative piece of land, has referred the matter to

mediation.

10. We have no hesitation to say that the said approach of

the Division Bench was totally untenable in law.

11. We further find that the approach of the State

Government in the present matter can be said to be one of

committing aggravated contempt. The High Court having

allowed the appeal on 10th February 2020, and which was

not interfered with by this Court on 19th July 2021, the State

ought to have conveyed the land in question to the appellants

on the basis of the offer made initially on 6th April 2011.

Asking the appellants to pay according to the current market

rate after the appellants have succeeded before the High

Court and this Court, in our view, is an attempt to disobey

and defeat the mandamus of the High Court.

12. Under the constitutional scheme, a writ issued by the

High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India which has not been interfered with

by this Court has to be followed in letter and spirit, by all the

10 authorities who are bound by such a writ. The majesty of

law requires that due obedience has to be given to the

command of the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, particularly when it is not interfered

with by this Court.

13. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned

order, which has the effect of undermining the dignity and

authority of the High Court, is not sustainable in law. The

High Court has totally erred in diluting its earlier orders by

passing the impugned order. The High Court having, on

earlier occasions, emphasized the necessity to abide by the

command of its directions and also issuing notice to the

Chief Secretary to comply with the order, ought not to have

directed the parties to mediation.

14. Therefore, in our considered view, the impugned order is

not sustainable in law and the appeals deserve to be allowed.

15. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned

order dated 9th February 2024 in CPAN No. 88 of 2023 along

with CPAN No.384 of 2021 and CPAN No.1453 of 2022

arising out of FMA No.299 of 2019 passed by the High Court

of Calcutta is quashed and set aside.

11

16. Having quashed and set aside the order of the High

Court, in ordinary course, we would have remanded the

matter to the High Court to proceed with the contempt

petition. However, in the present case, we are not inclined to

do so. The appellants, having succeeded before the Division

Bench of the High Court as early as on 10th February 2020

and before this Court on 19th July 2021, have been running

from pillar to post for a period of almost 12 years. In our

view, relegating the matter to the High Court and asking it to

decide the same afresh would lead to further delay.

17. In that view of the matter, while allowing the appeals,

we deem it appropriate to keep the matters pending so as to

ensure compliance of the writ of mandamus issued by the

High Court.

18. We are of the considered view that, as already observed

hereinabove, the majesty of law should not be compromised

with.

19. In that view of the matter, we direct the Chief Secretary

of the State of West Bengal to ensure that the order passed

by the High Court dated 10th February 2020 is complied with

in letter and spirit. For the sake of clarity, we have already

12 reproduced hereinabove the prayer clause (g), which is part

of the order of the High Court dated 24th March 2023.

20. We, therefore, direct Respondent No.7 to comply with

the directions of the High Court dated 10th February 2020.

21. It is made clear that in case the directions so issued by

the High Court and reiterated by this Court are not complied

with by Respondent No.7, the Respondent No.7 shall

personally remain present in this Court at 10:30 a.m. on 3 rd

March 2025 and show cause as to why an action for

committing contempt be not taken against him.

22. We further make it clear that if the better counsel

prevails upon Respondent No.7 and the order is complied

with by the next date of hearing, he need not remain present

before this Court.

23. List the matter on 3rd March 2025 for reporting

compliance.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

……………..............................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 12, 2025.

13