CPOWP No. 26/2018 c/w CONOW No. 65/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CPOWP No. 26/2018 c/w CONOW No. 65/2018 Date of pronouncement : 16.12.2025 Uploaded on : 18.12.2025 M/s Dujodwala Resins and Terpenes Lts. ….Petitioner Through:- Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Dev Singh, Advocate. V/s B. B. Vyas & Anr. …..Respondents Through:- Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG. \ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE JUDGMENT (ORAL) CPOWP No. 26/2018 01. The petitioner, as an auction purchaser, had purchased “Oleo Pine Resin” to the tune of 1313.468 MT worth Rs. 3,92,12,742/- in the year 2007 and the payment was duly made by the petitioner for the said auction amount. 02. Later, the petitioner was called upon to pay the Central Excise Duty @ 16% per annum along with 2% Education Cess on the Excise Duty for the period from 2005- Serial No. 02 Regular List CPOWP No. 26/2018 c/w CONOW No. 65/2018 06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, which amounted to Rs. 45,46,818.36/- which was collected from the petitioner against which the petitioner had come to this Court with the writ petition-OWP No. 335/2015 which came to be allowed in terms of order dated 23.11.2017. 03. The legal premise on which the petitioner was subjected to demand for payment of Central Excise Duty is a judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand which is said to have been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 2902/2020 which is pending adjudication and the final outcome would be determining the fate of the present contempt petition as to whether the order dated 23.11.2017 of the learned writ court would sustain to earn its compliance from the respondents’ end or would fail in its final effects, as such, there is no purpose of keeping this contempt petition on the docket of this Court and, accordingly, the same is closed with a right reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek revival subject to the final outcome from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in above referred SLP. 04. Disposed of along with connected application(s). CONOW No. 65/2018 05. By virtue of an order dated 23.11.2017, the writ petition-OWP No. 335/2015 was taken up for hearing upon CPOWP No. 26/2018 c/w CONOW No. 65/2018 the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties and the matter was disposed of with a direction unto the writ- respondents to release the amount recovered from the writ- petitioner by way of Central Excise Duty within a period of two months failing which the reimbursement of the said amount was to carry interest @ 6% from order dated 23.11.2017 till actual payment of the amount taking place. 06. The claim of the writ-petitioner for recovery in the said writ petition was for an amount of Rs. 45,46,818.36/- which is said to have been purportedly deducted from the petitioner’s purse by reference to a central excise duty payable. Said amount was collected by the writ-respondent No. 1 and kept in the shape of FDR pledged in favour of the writ- respondent No. 2. 07. The writ-respondent No. 1 was, as it was then the State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Forest Department, whereas the writ-respondent No. 2 was, the Chief Conservator of Forests, J&K. 08. When the compliance to the direction of the writ court order did not come forth within the stipulated period, the writ-petitioner came forward with a contempt petition-CPOWP No. 26/2018 instituted on 15.02.2018 in which the Chief Secretary of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, who then was Mr. CPOWP No. 26/2018 c/w CONOW No. 65/2018 B. B. Vyas and Conservator of Forests, who then was Mr. Farooq Geelani were named as contemnors/respondents. 09. In the said contempt petition, notice was issued in terms of order dated 26.02.2018 and on the next date of hearing fixed in the said contempt petition which was 11.05.2018, the appearance on behalf of the said two contemnors/respondents had come to take place, meaning thereby said two contemnors/respondents became fully conscious of the fact that even contempt petition was being pressed against them for non-compliance of the direction given in the writ court order dated 23.11.2017. 10. From the end of the writ-respondents, an application-MCC No. 21/2018 is said to have been filed on 08.05.2018 through which the recall of writ court order dated 23.11.2017 was solicited. 11. While the said application for recall was pending, the writ-respondents are said to have a revisit of their legal thinking that a review petition requires to be preferred with respect to writ court order dated 23.11.2017 for which purpose so called official process was pressed into service by taking up the matter with the Administrative Department of Forest then to Law Department and in that regard final sanction coming forth from Law Department on 28.11.2018 CPOWP No. 26/2018 c/w CONOW No. 65/2018 for filing the review petition, which finally landed before the learned Sr. Additional Advocate General on 10.12.2018 resulting in filing of a time barred review petition on 20.12.2018 accompanied with the condonation of delay application literally seeking condonation of delay of almost one year in seeking the review. 12. The very fact that recall of order dated 23.11.2017 was sought by the writ-respondents by filing an application- MCC No. 21/2018 on 08.05.2018 is an acknowledgment of the fact from the end of the writ-respondents that they were not comfortable with the order dated 23.11.2017 so passed in writ petition-OWP No. 335/2015 and, therefore, it should not have taken more than seven months in running for the writ- respondents to set their house in order in coming forward with filing of a review petition instead of seeking recall of the writ court order dated 23.11.2017 through an application-MCC No. 21/2018. 13. In the entire condonation of delay application while the applicants i.e., the State of Jammu & Kashmir as it was then and the Chief Conservator of Forests have spelled out the process which has generated the decision to file review petition but the process which generated the decision to file recall application has been kept muted as if filing of a review application was a matter of stray thinking at the leisure and CPOWP No. 26/2018 c/w CONOW No. 65/2018 pleasure of the applicants filing application-MCC No. 21/2018, whereas filing of a review petition was a matter of a deep-seated thinking for which the Administrative Department and Law Department required to be on the same page along with the learned Sr. Additional Advocate General of the State so as to generate the review petition against the writ court order dated 23.11.2017. 14. Nothing can be more frivolous in the name of showing a cause for delayed filing of a review petition than what has been set up in the application itself, as such, the same is dismissed. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 16.12.2025 Bunty Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No Bunty Kumar 2025.12.18 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu