1984 (3) TMI 391 - SC - Customs

Contempt of Court - Interim Relief - Held that - The High Court not having set any limit of time for the disposal of the applications, it was not for the writ petitioners to impose a time-limit and demand that their applications should be disposed of forthwith. If the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the failure of their authorities to dispose of their applications expeditiously, it was open to them to seek a further direction from the court to fixing a limit of time within which the applications were to be disposed of. We fail to see how the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports could be said to have committed any contempt of court, even prima facie, by their mere failure to take action in the matter of the disposal of the applications of the writ petitions. In the circumstances, we perceive the application to commit the authorities for contempt of courts to be a device to exact licences from them. We accordingly allow the appeal, vacate the interim order dated November 22, 1983 of the Calcutta High Court

Summary

Issues:
- Choice of forum for filing the writ petition
- Grant of interim order without hearing opposite parties
- Vacating of interim order by the Supreme Court
- Contempt of court rule against authorities

Analysis:

Choice of forum for filing the writ petition:
The case involved a Writ Petition filed in the Calcutta High Court by M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Limited and Narayana Das Jain against the Union of India and others. The petition primarily sought relief against an action under clause 8-B of the Import Control Order. The Supreme Court noted that the choice of the Calcutta High Court as the forum was questionable, given the locations of the company and the respondents. The Court expressed concern over such strategic forum selection in legal battles, causing delays and hindering prompt resolution.

Grant of interim order without hearing opposite parties:
The Calcutta High Court had granted an interim order without hearing the opposite parties, which the Supreme Court found to be drastic and potentially harmful. The interim order stayed actions under clause 8-B of the Import Control Order, which was deemed inappropriate without hearing the authorities responsible for the order. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering public interest and the consequences of such interim orders, particularly when directed against public officials exercising statutory powers.

Vacating of interim order by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court, after detailed analysis, vacated the interim order granted by the Calcutta High Court. The Court highlighted that the statutory order under clause 8-B, made in the public interest, should not be stayed without hearing the authorities responsible. The Court also clarified that vacating the interim order would not prevent the petitioners from seeking relief under a Public Notice issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.

Contempt of court rule against authorities:
The writ petitioners had sought a rule for contempt of court against the authorities for not processing their applications despite the interim order. The Supreme Court found it unjustified, stating that the stay of the 'abeyance' order did not impose a time limit on the authorities for application processing. The Court ruled that the failure to act promptly did not amount to contempt of court, and the petitioners could have sought a court direction for timely disposal of their applications.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, vacated the interim order, and quashed the rule for contempt of court. The Court emphasized the need for careful consideration in granting interim relief, especially when involving public officials and statutory orders. Additionally, the Court addressed a statement made by a government official, expressing disapproval of the language used but accepting the explanation provided.