RUPA AND CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusFIRHAD HAKIM AND OTHERS

                  [2025] 2 S.C.R. 648 : 2025 INSC 245

                  Rupa and Co. Limited and Another
                                 v.
                      Firhad Hakim and Others
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 2376-2378 of 2025)
                               12 February 2025
           [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether 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, was
       justified in directing the parties to mediation.

                                   Headnotes†
       Judgment/Order – Non-compliance of the order of the High
       Court – Aggravated contempt – HIDCO agreed to convey land
       to the appellants on freehold basis for Rs. 4,00,92,000/- –
       Appellant paid the entire amount – However, HIDCO decided
       that allotment would not be on freehold basis but on leasehold
       basis – Later, HIDCO addressed a letter stating that there
       would be change in proposed lease deed – Writ petition by
       appellants – The Division Bench of the High Court by order
       dated 10.02.2020 found the action of respondents therein
       was arbitrary and directed them to register deed of sale/
       conveyance – SLP filed by HIDCO was dismissed – Thereafter,
       the appellants alleged non-compliance of the order and filed
       various contempt petitions – The High Court emphasized to
       abide by the command of its directions – However, in one of
       those contempt petitions, the High Court by the impugned
       judgment referred the matter to mediation – Correctness:
       Held: 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 dated 10.02.2020 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 Division Bench of the High Court in the present case, in
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                              649

    Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others


     spite of the resistance of the counsel for the appellants herein, only
     on the basis of the statement of the Advocate 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 – The approach of the State Government in
     the present matter can be said to be one of committing aggravated
     contempt – The State ought to have conveyed the land in question
     to the appellants on the basis of the offer made initially – Besides
     that, asking the appellants to pay according to the current market
     rate after the appellants have succeeded before the High Court
     and this Court is an attempt to disobey and defeat the mandamus
     of the High Court – The impugned order, which has the effect of
     undermining the dignity and authority of the High Court, is not
     sustainable in law. [Paras 9, 11, 13]

     Constitution of India – Art.226 – Obedience to the command
     of the High Court:
     Held: 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 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. [Para 12]

                                 List of Acts
     Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
     Article 226 of Constitution; Obedience; Command of High Court;
     Majesty of law; Mandamus; Contempt; Mediation; Compliance of
     directions.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2376-2378
     of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2024 of the High Court
     at Calcutta in CPAN No. 88 of 2023, CPAN No. 384 of 2021 and
     CPAN No. 1453 of 2022
650                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv., Nishant Kumar , Animesh Kumar, Ms. Animesh
       Kumar, Tanay Aggarwal, Sandip Agarwal, Sumit Kumar.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Anant, Kartikey
       Bhatt, Kunal Mimani, Akshay Luthra.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 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 Secretary,
       West Bengal has since changed and cause title may be amended
       accordingly.
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.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       651

     Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others



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 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/-.
     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 16th
         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.
652                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       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 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
           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
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                         653

    Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others


                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 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 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 6 th
         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
654                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            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 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 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
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       655

    Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others


     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 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.
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
656                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 3rd 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.

       Result of the case: Directions issued.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan