Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2007 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 799 - SC - Indian LawsDeliberate and Willful Violation of the Prohibitory order passed by the High Court - Guilty of contempt of Court - Plea of mistake of understanding - Contempt Petition - Applications for Grant of licenses for excise shops - HELD THAT - The High Court in that view of the matter committed a grave mis-carriage of justice by not taking into consideration another most important fact that if actually the lottery was held by mistake or by misunderstanding of the orders, then the respondent would have immediately rectified it and would have cancelled the lottery but in the instant case, instead of canceling the lottery, the respondents have justified their conduct from which the determined declination of obeying the order is clearly proved It is settled law that a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof by pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retain the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court. Such violations should be put an end with an iron hand. We are unable to accept the argument advanced by learned Addl. Solicitor General that the respondents did not understand the implication and consequences of a prohibitory order passed by the High Court. We have already explained their conduct and the refusal to cancel the order when they were advised to do so by the High Court during the pendency of the contempt proceedings. The act of the respondent is not only willful but also deliberate and contumacious. The High Court committed a grave error of law by not holding that if there was a doubt about the implication of the order of the Court, the alleged contemnors should have approached the Court and have clarified their alleged confusion. Likewise, this Court while ordering notice in the present appeal @ SLP have clearly directed on 18.09.2006 that no license shall be granted on the basis of the lottery and pursuant to the circular dated 20.01.2004. Even after the receipt of the order, the respondents have not cancelled the license, but allowed them to continue the business. The reason is obvious. The respondents though tendered unqualified apology before the High Court, the High Court was not inclined to go into the question of apology in view of the observations made by it in the order impugned in this civil appeal. Even before us no apology whatsoever was tendered by respondent Nos.1-4. We, therefore, hold them guilty of willful and deliberate act of contempt. As it is evident that respondent Nos.1-4 have no regard for the orders passed by this Court on 4, 19 and 20.01.2005 and have scant respect for the Court s orders and have deliberately and willfully and with utter disregard violated all the 3 orders and are thus guilty of contempt of Court. However, taking a lenient view and taking into consideration of the future prospects of the officers, respondent Nos. 1-4 we are not imposing any punishment for their willful violation of the order of the High Court and accept the unqualified apology filed before the High Court. We, therefore hold them guilty of contempt of Court and do hereby censure their conduct - Civil appeal stands allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged Contempt of Court by Government Officials 2. Interim Orders and Their Compliance 3. Conduct of Lottery in Violation of Court Orders 4. Legal Consequences of Disobedience of Court Orders Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Contempt of Court by Government Officials: The appeal was filed by the All Bengal Licensees Association against several government officials, alleging deliberate and willful violation of court orders. The officials were accused of holding a lottery for the final selection of excise shops despite interim orders from the High Court prohibiting such actions. The appellant argued that the respondents' actions amounted to contempt of court. 2. Interim Orders and Their Compliance: The High Court had issued interim orders on 04.01.2005, 19.01.2005, and 20.01.2005, restraining the respondents from finalizing the selection of excise shops without specific leave from the court. Despite these orders, the respondents published advertisements and conducted lotteries for the selection of excise shops. The High Court extended these interim orders until further notice, and the appellant communicated these orders to the respondents. However, the respondents proceeded with the lotteries, leading to the contempt application. 3. Conduct of Lottery in Violation of Court Orders: The respondents conducted lotteries on 20.03.2005, 21.03.2005, and 22.03.2005, in violation of the High Court's interim orders. The High Court acknowledged that the respondents had disobeyed the specific directions but concluded that the disobedience was not willful, attributing it to a misunderstanding of the orders. The respondents argued that the Division Bench's orders on 15.03.2005 and 18.03.2005 permitted them to grant excise licenses, which they believed overrode the Single Judge's orders. 4. Legal Consequences of Disobedience of Court Orders: The Supreme Court found that the respondents, being highly qualified and well-placed government officials, should have understood the implications of the court's prohibitory orders. The Court held that the respondents' actions were deliberate and contumacious, emphasizing that a party cannot take unfair advantage by breaching interim orders and then plead misunderstanding to escape consequences. The Court asserted that the High Court should have directed the respondents to cancel the lotteries held in violation of its orders to uphold the majesty of law. Judgment: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding the respondents guilty of contempt of court. The Court canceled all auctions held on 20, 21, and 22.03.2005 and directed the respondents to stop the successful bidders from continuing their business, emphasizing the need to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. The Court accepted the respondents' unqualified apology but warned them against future violations, highlighting the importance of compliance with court orders. Conclusion: The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences of willful disobedience. It reinforces the principle that the judiciary's authority must be respected and that violations of court orders cannot be excused by claims of misunderstanding, especially by senior government officials. The judgment serves as a precedent to ensure that court orders are followed diligently and any breach is addressed with appropriate legal measures.
|