1957 (4) TMI 79 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refusal of the Accountant General to comply with the High Court's order constitutes contempt of court.
2. Whether the service of the court's order is necessary for initiating contempt proceedings.
3. Whether the demands made by the petitioner exceeded the relief granted by the court.
4. Whether the notice served upon the respondent complied with the procedural requirements.
5. Whether the respondent's actions were in good faith and without intent to disobey the court's order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal to Comply with Court's Order and Contempt of Court:
The petitioner, Mr. N. Baksi, alleged that the refusal of the Accountant General to comply with the High Court's order dated March 11, 1957, amounted to contempt of court. The court had directed the Accountant General to pay the passage money to the petitioner's wife and children as per the Superior Civil Services Rules, 1924. The Accountant General's reply indicated an intention to appeal to the Supreme Court rather than immediate compliance. The court examined whether this refusal constituted wilful disobedience of its order.

2. Necessity of Service of Court's Order for Contempt Proceedings:
The court emphasized that for contempt proceedings to be valid, the order must be duly served on the respondent. The practice followed was to first send a copy of the judgment and then issue a regular writ for service. In this case, the judgment was forwarded on March 14, 1957, and received by the Accountant General on March 19, 1957. The writ was issued on March 21, 1957, and served on April 1, 1957. Since the reply from the Accountant General was sent before receiving the writ, the court held that contempt proceedings could not be initiated without service of the order.

3. Demands Exceeding Relief Granted by the Court:
The respondent argued that the demands made by Mr. Baksi in his letter dated March 11, 1957, were broader than the relief granted by the court. The court acknowledged that even if the demands exceeded the relief, it did not prevent the Accountant General from complying with the specific part of the request as ordered by the court.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Notice:
The respondent contended that the notice served did not fully specify the matters related to the alleged contempt. The court found this argument to be without merit, stating that the notice, along with the copy of the petition, provided sufficient details to inform the respondent of the charges. The court emphasized that substantial compliance with procedural rules was sufficient, rather than strict adherence to technicalities.

5. Good Faith and Intent of the Respondent:
The Solicitor General defended the Accountant General, arguing that the reply to Mr. Baksi's letter was made in good faith, with the belief that the respondent was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to decide on appealing the order. The court considered whether the respondent's actions indicated wilful disobedience. Given that the writ had not been served when the reply was sent, the court found that the respondent's actions did not constitute wilful disobedience.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the contempt proceedings were not competent due to the absence of service of the writ on the respondent at the time of the alleged non-compliance. The court also noted that the case did not fall within any exceptions to the general rule requiring service of the order. Therefore, the proceeding in contempt was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.