Supreme Court Directs Chief Secretary to Ensure Compliance with High Court Mandamus, Quashes Mediation Order

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard appeals by Rupa & Co. Ltd. and another challenging a Calcutta High Court order which referred contempt proceedings — arising from non‑compliance with a writ of mandamus directing conveyance of land — to mediation. The appeals arose from alleged failure of the State and HIDCO to execute a deed of sale/conveyance in favour of the appellants despite a Division Bench judgment of the High Court and this Court’s refusal of special leave.

The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the impugned order dated 9 February 2024 and directed the Chief Secretary of West Bengal to ensure that the High Court’s order dated 10 February 2020 was complied with “in letter and spirit.” The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in referring a contempt matter to mediation where it had already issued a mandamus and recorded the State’s obligation to comply. The Court observed that “mediation has to be by the consent of both the parties. Mediation cannot be thrusted upon either of the parties.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The bench further directed that if Respondent No.7 (the Chief Secretary) failed to comply, he must personally appear before this Court on 3 March 2025 at 10:30 a.m. to show cause why contempt proceedings should not follow.

Background: The dispute began with HIDCO’s letter dated 6 April 2011 offering to convey, on freehold basis, Plot No. IIE/17 in New Town, Kolkata to the appellants for Rs.13.364 lakhs per cottah; the appellants deposited the full consideration of Rs.4,00,92,000. HIDCO later sought to convert the transaction into a 99‑year lease and treated the sale price as lease premium, citing review during the Model Code of Conduct. The appellants challenged the change by writ petition; the Single Judge dismissed it but the Division Bench allowed the First Miscellaneous Appeal on 10 February 2020, holding the action arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and granted a writ of mandamus directing execution and registration of the deed of sale/conveyance in terms of the 6 April 2011 allotment letter (prayer clause (g)). This Court refused special leave on 19 July 2021.

Alleging non‑compliance, the appellants filed contempt petitions before the High Court. The High Court recorded the State’s undertaking to comply and warned that, in the absence of compliance, “the court may consider appointing a Receiver or Special Officer to execute the necessary conveyance to comply with its order.” Thereafter the State informed HIDCO’s commercial manager that the Cabinet proposed conveyance at then market value, demanding a further payment; the appellants moved further contempt proceedings. On 9 February 2024 the Division Bench referred the matter to mediation and appointed a former High Court judge as mediator despite the appellants’ opposition. The Supreme Court found that referral to mediation was legally untenable given the prior mandamus and that the State’s conduct amounted to aggravated contempt by attempting to displace the earlier order. The Supreme Court quashed the mediation order and related High Court orders (CPAN Nos. 88 of 2023, 384 of 2021 and 1453 of 2022 arising out of FMA No.299 of 2019), kept the matters pending to secure compliance, and issued the personal appearance direction with the liberty that it would be excused if compliance occurred before the return date.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 245 Case Title: Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Nalin Kohli, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee (for Respondent No.7 – Chief Secretary, West Bengal); Shri Kartikeya Bhatt (for officers of HIDCO)