1. This application for contempt has been filed by M/s. Diamond Plastic Industries on the allegation that the State of Andhra Pradesh has violated the direction of this Court dated 9th May, 1997 in disposing of civil appeal nos. 3629, 3630 and 3631 of 1997, inasmuch as the amount which was due to the applicant has not been paid by the State of Andhra Pradesh for this length of time. On examining the order of this Court dated 9th of May, 1997, we do not find that any direction has been given on the basis of any quantification made as to any specified amount to be given to this applicant, M/s. Diamond Plastic Industries. All that has been said in the aforesaid decision is that the decision of the BIFR binds the parties.
2. According to Mrs. Shyamla Pappu learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court having affirmed the direction of BIFR, the amount which the petitioner was entitled to on the basis of the order of the BIFR, the same amount should be paid. We, therefore, scrutinized the order of the BIFR dated 4th April, 1994 and on going through the entire order, which was in relation to financial reconstruction of M/s. Hyderabad Allwyn Limited, and in that order, no where it has been stated that M/s. Diamond Plastic Industries is entitled to any quantified sum from the state government. On the other hand, this particular petitioner had filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court for several directions including the direction of payment of amount which was dismissed on a conclusion that it involved disputed question of fact and the court will not be entitled to go into this question in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Ms. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel then referred to a report of the general manager, District Industries center, Sangareddy, Medak district dated 19th March, 2001 wherein the said officer appears to have taken the view that the claim of M/s. Diamond Plastic Industries was on the basis of the orders made by the BIFR, High Court and the Supreme Court. But the reading of the officer of the order of Supreme Court probably is not correct.
At any rate such reading of the concerned officer does not confer a right of the claimant nor would it amount to a violation of the Court's direction so as to take action against the State of Andhra Pradesh and/or officers of State of Andhra Pradesh for non-payment of the amount in question. Unless and until the Court is satisfied that there has been a deliberate violation of any positive direction, the question of initiating any contempt proceedings or taking any action against any party under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act does not arise. Having regard to the facts including the orders passed by this Court, already referred to, we do not see any justification for initiating or taking any action against the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Dismissal of the contempt petition, however, will not debar the applicant to agitate the claim before an appropriate forum, if the applicant is really entitled to any sum and the forum on being approached, will dispose of the matter in accordance with law.