Mediation Must Be By Consent Of Both Parties; Cannot Be Thrusted Upon Either Of Parties: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeals challenging the Interlocutory Order and the Contempt Petitions pending before the High Court.
Justice BR Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasised that mediation must be by the consent of both the parties and the same cannot be thrusted upon either of the parties.
The Court emphasised thus in Civil Appeals raising a serious question about maintaining the dignity and authority of the High Court. The issue raised was as to whether the High Court should act leniently in matters where an issue regarding the obedience of its mandamus is concerned.
The Appeals challenged the Interlocutory Order and the Contempt Petitions pending before the High Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “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. We have no hesitation to say that the said approach of the Division Bench was totally untenable in law.”
The Bench noted that the majesty of law requires that due obedience must 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 the Apex Court.
Senior Advocate Nalin Kohli appeared for the Appellants while Advocates Madhumita Bhattacharjee and Kartikeya Bhatt appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Appellants were allotted a plot of land by the Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO) in 2011 on a freehold basis for Rs. 4,00,92,000/-. However, in 2012, HIDCO changed the allotment to leasehold for 99 years, citing the Model Code of Conduct during the West Bengal Assembly Elections. The Appellants challenged this decision and filed a Writ Petition before the Calcutta High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the said Petition, but the Division Bench allowed the Appeal, holding that HIDCO's action was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Despite the Court’s Order, HIDCO failed to execute the deed of sale on a freehold basis. The Appellants filed Contempt Petitions, and the High Court directed HIDCO to comply with its Order. However, instead of complying, HIDCO proposed a new sale price of Rs. 12,51,47,722/-, which the Appellants contested. The High Court then suggested mediation to settle the dispute, despite the opposition by the Appellants. Being aggrieved by this Order, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, said, “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.”
The Court noted that the approach of the State Government in this case can be said to be one of committing aggravated contempt and the High Court having allowed the Appeal, and which was not interfered with by the Apex Court, the State ought to have conveyed the land in question to the Appellants on the basis of the offer made initially.
“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”, it added.
The Court further elucidated that 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 the Supreme Court has to be followed in letter and spirit, by all the authorities who are bound by such a Writ.
“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”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the impugned Order.
Cause Title- Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 245)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Nalin Kohli, AOR Nishant Kumar, Advocates Animesh Kumar, Animesh Kumar, Tanay Aggarwal, Sandip Agarwal, and Sumit Kumar.
Respondents: AORs Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Kunal Mimani, Advocates Kartikeya Bhatt, Debarati Sadhu, Anant, and Akshay Luthra.
