2007 (11) TMI 489 - HC - Indian Laws

Contempt of court - Civil contempt - Delay in compliance with Court s direction - Held that - In the instant case, it was not proper on the part of the authorities to have insisted on the petitioner approaching them with the draft of the amendment to the licence. Although, it was none of his duty, the petitioner approached them. However, it is unfortunate that they chose to treat the petitioner s request in a casual manner. In the result, contempt petition is dismissed but with strong deprecation of the conduct of the Joint Director of Foreign Trade and the other concerned Authorities. it is hoped that they do not repeat their acts in future and take a lesson from this case. Although the contempt petition is dismissed by accepting the explanation and holding that the delay was not intentional, it is directed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the condemnor to pay costs to the petitioner, quantified at ₹ 15,000/-. Costs to be paid within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged willful disobedience of a court order.
2. Compliance with the court's directive within the stipulated time frame.
3. Delay in compliance and reasons for the same.
4. Consequences of non-compliance and potential contempt of court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Willful Disobedience of a Court Order:
The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition claiming that the contemnor willfully disobeyed the High Court's order dated 7th April 2006. The petitioner sought punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and requested the contemnor to amend a Special Imprest Licence as per the court's directive.

2. Compliance with the Court's Directive:
The High Court had directed the licensing authorities to amend the Special Imprest Licence within six weeks from the date of the order, enabling the petitioner to seek regularization of imports at a concessional duty rate. The contemnor's counsel was present during the issuance of the order, indicating awareness of the directive.

3. Delay in Compliance and Reasons:
The petitioner sent multiple letters to the contemnor urging compliance. The contemnor responded by requesting additional policy provisions and customs notifications, which the petitioner found unreasonable. The contemnor eventually issued a compliance letter on 20th October 2006 but delayed its dispatch until 24th January 2007, well beyond the six-week period stipulated by the court.

The contemnor explained the delay by citing difficulties in tracing old records and the need for legal opinions from the Law Ministry. An affidavit was filed, stating that the delay was unintentional and tendering an unconditional apology.

4. Consequences of Non-Compliance and Potential Contempt:
The court noted that although the contemnor eventually complied with the order, the delay was significant and without any application for an extension of time. The court emphasized that authorities must respect court orders and seek extensions proactively if compliance within the stipulated time is not feasible. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments underscoring the importance of timely compliance and accountability of public officers.

Judgment and Observations:
The court acknowledged the delay in compliance but accepted the contemnor's unconditional apology, noting that the delay was not intentional. However, the court strongly deprecated the conduct of the Joint Director of Foreign Trade and other concerned authorities, emphasizing the need for prompt compliance with court orders and proper treatment of senior citizens.

The court dismissed the contempt petition but directed the respondents to pay costs of Rs. 15,000 to the petitioner within three weeks, highlighting the importance of adhering to judicial directives and maintaining respect for the judicial process.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the contempt petition while accepting the contemnor's apology for the delay, but it underscored the necessity for timely compliance with court orders and proper conduct by public authorities. The court imposed costs on the respondents to emphasize the seriousness of the issue and deter future lapses.