- (1.) This contempt petition is preferred alleging deliberate and willful non-compliance of the directions given under the order dated 8.12.1993 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.919/1990. By the order aforesaid while disposing of the writ petition a direction was given to the District Level Committee or its successor to dispose of the petitioner's application for grant of subsidy under the Central Subsidy Scheme within a period of two months from the date of placing the order before the competent authority. The application of the petitioner was required to be disposed of in the light of Baldwa Synthetics case.
(2.) Suffice to mention that the appeal preferred before Division Bench (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.581/1994) giving challenge to the judgment dated 8.12.1993 also came to be dismissed on 23.9.1994. As per the petitioner, no positive action was taken by the respondents in pursuant to the directions given by this Court, therefore, a notice dated 19.2.2006 was served on the Collector, Jaisalmer and General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jaisalmer by the petitioner through his counsel Shri Dinesh Mehta, Advocate. In response to the notice aforesaid, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jaisalmer by communication dated 25.2.2006 conveyed to the Commissioner, Commissionerate of Industries, Rajasthan, Jaipur that the petitioner preferred a petition for writ that came to be disposed of on 8.12.1993. The appeal also came to be dismissed subsequent thereto and while narrating all these details, a reference was also given that the application submitted by the petitioner also came to be rejected on 28.7.1994 by the State Level Committee in its 31 st meeting. A copy of the communication aforesaid was also forwarded to Shri Dinesh Mehta, Advocate. Though, a reference of the dismissal of the application was given in the communication dated 25.2.2006 but no specific order or minutes of the meeting wherein the application of the petitioner was rejected was annexed or otherwise forwarded to the petitioner or his counsel. In such circumstance the petitioner preferred this contempt petition before this Court to invoke its authority as per Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) All the respondents filed separate replies to the contempt petition and also placed on record copy of the minutes of the proceedings of 31st Meeting of State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme held on 28.7.1994. In the minutes the Agenda Item No.7 pertains to subsidiary case of the petitioner. The Committee concern rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of subsidiary by drawing certain reasons.;