9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Manohar M. Kulkarni, Partner, for the Petitioner. Ms. Shahnaz V. Bharucha with Sr. Counsel S/Shri A.J. Rana with P. Vyas i/b H.P. Chaturvedi, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. In this Contempt Petition and the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner prays as under : (a) That the Contemnor is guilty of contempt of this Hon ble Court for having willfully disobeyed the order dated 7th April, 2006, passed by this Hon ble Court and that, the Contemnor is liable to punishment for having committed contempt of this Hon ble Court. (b) That the Contemnor be held guilty of civil contempt and be dealt with and/or punished in accordance inter alia the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, with such fine and imprisonment or in such other manner in accordance with law as this Hon ble High Court may deem fit. (c) That the Contemnor be directed to issue amendment to Licence in accordance with or as per the draft annexed alongwith letter of the petitioner dated 3rd January, 2007 with or without modification, or amendment, as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper . (d) Costs of this Contempt Petition be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 27, of the order dated 7th April, 2006, issued by this Hon b1e High Court. 5.2 Petitioner s letter dated 18th April, 2006 to the Contemnor with authenticated copy of the order dated 7th April, 2006 issued by this Hon ble High Court along with copy of petitioner s letter dated 15th April, 2006 with enclosures mentioned therein. 5.3 Petitioner s letter dated 28th April, 2006 to the Contemnor to expedite the matter this letter was given to courier on 27th April, 2006 for delivery on 28th April, 2006, which was not accepted by the Contemnor s office and returned back to the petitioner. Since the same was not accepted or refused the same is deemed to have been received by the contemnor. 5.4 Contemnor s letter dated 1st May, 2006 in reply to petitioner s letter dated 15th April, 2006 stating that his office could not find the relevant policy provisions, which extended concessional duty benefits for supplies made to the Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited (for short RCF ), a project financed by the Govt. of India. Contemnor further stated in his letter that their office has still not received a certified copy of the said order dated 7th April, 2006 and requesting the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise of powers conferred under Rule 8 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 shall within 6 weeks from today amend the Special Imprest Licence No. P/K/2993896 dated 30th May, 1983 into a licence which may entitle the petitioner to seek regularization of the imports already made under the said licence at concessional rate of duty if permissible under the Customs Act In pursuance to the Order, the applicant firm was asked to furnish policy provisions under which they were eligible for project import Licence. In response to this, they replied vide their letter dated 16th May, 2006 quoting policy provisions 177(1) import licences issued for capita] goods and connected raw materials and components required for the initial setting up or for substantial expansion of a project would be endorsed, as admissible on the recommendations of the sponsoring authority concerned for availing concessional rate of duty. Before making recommendations, the sponsoring authority, will satisfy itself that the case is covered under the relevant notification issued by the Ministry of Finance in this regard. The endorsement, to be on the basis of licence will be as follows :- Project import for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order. Attempt to comply with the same was made only in January 2007. Even then, the Intention was, not to comply with the order. In any event, the compliance is much beyond the period prescribed in the Court s order. There is no application made seeking extension of time. Therefore, this Court should take action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 6. After this Court was moved by the petitioner on 25th June, 2007, the following order was passed : 1. Heard the petitioner. Perused the record including the judgement of the Division Bench dated 7th April, 2006. It appears that the respondents have not complied with the directions in paragraph 35(b) of the order of the Division Bench. It prima facie appears that respondents have willfully committed breach of the order of the Division Bench. Hence, admit. 2. Issue show cause notice to the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be tried and punished for having committed civil contempt of this Court. A copy of the petition and the copy of this order to accompany with the show cause notice. The show cause notice is made returnable after four weeks from the date of its issuance. Place the petition on Board on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter of this officer, the delivery boy returned the papers back to the petitioner. Therefore, the question of refusing to accept the paper does not arise. The office of the respondent was very much in the process of following order of the Hon ble High Court, which is evident from the fact that respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner vide letter dated 1st May, 2006 requesting to supply copy of relevant policy provision and customs notification, which extends concessional duty benefit against the supplies made to R.C.F. Ltd. In reply to the office letter dated 1st May, 2006, petitioner firm replied vide their letter 4th May, 2006 stating that they are unable to provide relevant policy provisions and requested to this office to consult the Senior Counsel, who had appeared in the High Court. The respondent office again requested vide letter dated 11th May, 2006 to forward a copy of relevant policy provision. 8. Insofar as compliance being beyond time, this is what is stated in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the affidavit in reply filed by the Joint Director Foreign Trade, Mumbai :- 7. In the meantime, the respondent office approached the Law Ministry at Mumbai requesting for opinion f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up letter dated 21-7-2006 was sent 63 days after the time limit was over or after 105 days after the Hon ble Bombay High Court order. I say no more. The above will show that even after receiving the advice of the Ministry of Law vide their letter dated 8-8-2006, the respondents office passed an appropriate order dated 20-10-2006. They took 73 days to prepare an appropriate order dated 20-10-2006. Here what they mean by order is the amendment letter. From the above, it will be observed that the contemnor s office feels that the Hon ble Bombay High Court s order could be ignored on account of somebody s marriage and even after getting a reminder letter dated 3-1-2007 from us, they took 23 days to dispatch it. Our reminder letter dated is 3-1-2007 and not 1-1-2007 as mentioned by them. The statements like unconditional and sincere apology has just no meaning in these circumstances. 30. In the context of all that is stated hereinabove, I state that the contemnor was required to obey the order within six weeks, i.e. on or before 19-5-2006, whereas the very first letter he has written to the Law Ministry seeking their opinion was on 23-6-2006 after the period was over. I have already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh reported in AIR 1997 S.C.1390, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that :- 3. The doctrine of fullfaith and credit applied to the acts done by the officers and presumptive evidence of regularity of official acts done or performed, is appositive in faithful discharge of duties to elongate public purpose and to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It is now settled legal position that the bureaucracy is also accountable for the acts done in accordance with the rules when judicial review is called to be exercised by the Courts. The hierarchical responsibility for the decision is their in-built discipline. But the Head of the Department/designated officer is ultimately responsible and accountable to the Court for the result of the action done or decision taken. Despite this, if there is any special circumstance absolving him of the accountability or if someone else is responsible for the action, he needs to bring them to the notice of the Court so that appropriate procedure is adopted and action taken. The controlling officer holds each of them responsible at the pain of disciplinary action. The object thereby is to ensure compliance of the rule of law. 4. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons are well connected/influential or due to obvious consideration. 13. In another decision reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 1025 (Bigyan Kumar Ors. v.Union of India Ors.), the Hon ble Supreme Court observes thus :- 7. We would part with the matter by recording our serious concern and disapproval of the growing conduct of parties and public officers in particular of ignoring the directions of the Courts and the multiplying instances of confrontation. The Court, including the apex one, is a part of the State and is a built in mechanism of the Constitution to administer justice in accordance with law. For discharging that duty, the Court has got to adopt an attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation brought before it for adjudication. The manner of functioning of the Court in accord with the Rule of law has to be dispassionate, objective and analytical. The Judges who preside over these courts do not act with a sense of superiority; nor do they look down upon others in the community. In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose for which the courts are established is duly served, it is necessary that everyone within the framework o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
