1954 (6) TMI 15 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State of Bihar can be held guilty of contempt for the infringement of an order of injunction.
2. Whether the issuance and publication of the notification by the State of Bihar was intentional or inadvertent.
3. Whether the notification issued on 19-5-1952 and published on 21-5-1952 was under a new power post the constitutional amendment.
4. Applicability of Order 39, Rule 2(3), Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to the State of Bihar.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the State of Bihar can be held guilty of contempt for the infringement of an order of injunction:
The primary contention was whether the State of Bihar could be held liable for contempt for disobeying an injunction order. The court examined the analogy of the State's immunity from tortious liability and found that Indian jurisprudence does not fully align with English common law, which holds the Crown immune from tortious actions. The court cited various precedents establishing that the State in India can be sued for certain tortious acts, especially when the acts involve the detention of land, goods, or chattels belonging to the subject. The court concluded that the State of Bihar, like any other corporate body or juristic person, can be held liable for contempt under Order 39, Rule 2(3), CPC, for disobeying an injunction order, provided the suit against the State is maintainable.

2. Whether the issuance and publication of the notification by the State of Bihar was intentional or inadvertent:
The State of Bihar argued that the issuance and publication of the notification were inadvertent and not intentional. The court noted that disobedience to a court order, even if unintentional, constitutes contempt. The court referred to English law, where the term "wilful disobedience" excludes only accidental and unintentional acts. The court observed that the State had filed an application to vacate the injunction order, which was pending, and yet issued the notification without waiting for the court's decision. This indicated that the act was not inadvertent. Therefore, the court found no merit in the argument that the disobedience was unintentional.

3. Whether the notification issued on 19-5-1952 and published on 21-5-1952 was under a new power post the constitutional amendment:
The State of Bihar contended that the notification was issued under a new power that came into existence after the constitutional amendment on 18-6-1951. The court found this argument unintelligible, noting that the injunction order passed on 19-3-1951 was still in force and had not been recalled. The court emphasized that the amendment of the Constitution did not affect the validity of the injunction order. The court cited a precedent stating that the government should have sought directions from the court if there was any doubt about its position after the injunction. Therefore, the court rejected this argument.

4. Applicability of Order 39, Rule 2(3), Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to the State of Bihar:
The court examined whether Order 39, Rule 2(3), CPC, which provides for the attachment of property and detention in civil prison for disobedience of an injunction order, applies to the State. The court noted that the language of Order 39, Rule 2(3), CPC, does not exclude the State from its purview. The court also referred to Article 300 of the Constitution, which allows the State to sue and be sued, and found no special immunity for the State in such cases. The court concluded that the State is a "person" within the meaning of Order 39, Rule 2(3), CPC, and is subject to the liabilities contemplated by it. The court held that an action for contempt under Order 39, Rule 2(3), CPC, could be taken against the State for disobeying an injunction order, with the form of disciplinary action being limited to the attachment of property.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the State of Bihar could be held guilty of contempt for disobeying an injunction order and that the issuance and publication of the notification were not inadvertent. The court also found that Order 39, Rule 2(3), CPC, applies to the State, allowing for the attachment of property as a form of disciplinary action.