9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (3) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quor Rules, 1973. It further appears that these petitions came up for hearing before the Vacation Judge between 28th to 31st December 1976 and the Vacation Judge passed the following order : Rule. Ad interim order as in prayer (e). In pursuance of this order passed by the Single Judge of this Court a writ was issued to the respondents in the following terms ; It is accordingly ordered and directed that the licenses granted to the petitioners under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 be and the same is hereby continued pending the hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application or until further orders. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they immediately served these orders upon the respondents even prior to 31st Dec. 1976 when these licences were due to expire, except in Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1977, wherein such a copy was served on the respondents on 7-1-1977. According to the petitioners in spite of the service of the ad interim order passed by this Court, the respondents did not renew their licences, nor issued any authority or letter on the basis of which they could continue their business. In substance it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vit, the respondents have filed the said letter before us. They further stated that thereafter the Under Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, vide his letter dated 7-1-1977 informed the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Maharastra State, Bombay, about the said clarification which was obviously based upon the letter written by the Additional Government Pleader. According to the respondents. Superintendents Prohibition and Excise, the Commissioner issued necessary directions to them vide letter dated 10-1-1977 clarifying the position that the stay granted by this Court is limited for the sale of undisposed stock of country liquor held by the licensees. The officers concerned have also filed a copy of the said letter with their affidavits. According to the officers, namely, the Superintendents of Prohibition and Excise, Bhandara and Nagpur Districts, under these circumstances and in view of the clarification made by the learned Judge on 5-1-1977 it is not open to the petitioners to say that the officers have not complied with the orders or direction issued by this Court. They have further submitted that they have allowed the petitioners to dispose of undi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of selling country liquor until the disposal of their stock. He further stated that neither the State Government, nor any of its officers interfered at any stage with the sale of country liquor by the petitioners and in fact the petitioners continued to sell the country liquor even though their licence had expired on 31st Dec. 1976. He then made a reference to the provisions of the Rules, namely, Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 and stated that he bona fide construed the interim order to mean that the petitioners could continue to sell their stock of country liquor until its disposal notwithstanding their licences have expired on 31st December 1976. However, by way of a further caution he thought it fit to consult the Government Pleader, Shri Sawant. After some discussion with him, they felt that the order of this Court was not quite clear and, therefore, he requested the Additional Government Pleader to make an application before the learned Vacation Judge for vacating the interim order, or in any case for getting it clarified So that no doubt is left as to what exactly the order means. He then stated that accordingly the matter was moved and it came up for hearing at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has then made a reference to the letter issued by the Additional Government pleader and according to him, he has acted accordingly and, therefore, has not disobeyed any order or writ issued by this Court. Vide further affidavit dated 28-2-1977 the Under Secretary of the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra has tendered an apology if this Court comes to the conclusion that he has committed the contempt of this Court. 10. On 1-3-1977 again an affidavit came to be filed by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Nagpur. In the said affidavit he has contended that in view of the interim order issued by this Court, the petitioners were at liberty to purchase the goods from the wholesalers and in fact they had never made any grievance that they were not being supplied the goods by the wholesalers. This position continued till he received instructions from the Government. According to him. he has not wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. He has also tendered his unqualified apology if ultimately this Court comes to the conclusion that he has disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. 11. The various averments made in this affidavits were denied by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing, Shri Barde, the Deputy Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Nagpur, as well as Shri Kohok, Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Nagpur, have filed further affidavits clarifying certain averments made in their earlier affidavits. Shri Kohok has also expressed his sincere regrets and has tendered an apology. The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Bhandara, has also filed similar affidavits. So far as Contempt petition No. 6 of 1977 is concerned, the ad interim order passed by this Court was served upon the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Amravati, on 7-1-1977. Prior to that he had received instructions from the higher authorities in terms of the letter written by the Additional Government, Pleader dated 5-1-1977 and according to him, therefore, he has not wilfully disobeyed any order or direction issued by this Court. This, is, in short, the controversy involved in these cases. 13. From the contentions raised before us, it appears to be the case of the respondents that by the order or writ issued by this Court, the licence granted to the licensees stood automatically renewed and on that basis itself the licensees could have continued their busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment Pleader has full liberty to conduct his case or advice his client to the best of his ability keeping in view the interest of his client. However, as a lawyer appearing before the Court he is expected to observe the rules of procedure. As an officer of the Court he has to play an important role in the administration of justice. Being an officer of the Court he owes a duty to the Court also. He is not only an agent of a party, but acts as a limb of a Court and is expected to assist the Court in the administration of justice. Even while interpreting or considering the observations of a higher judicial authority, like this Court, greatest possible care should be taken to relate the observations of the Court to the precise issue before it and to confine such observations in the compass of the question before the Court. It is well known that a written order passed by the Court cannot be interpreted in the light of parole discussion, nor a written order could be treated as varied or modified on that basis. A written order can be varied or modified by another written order and not orally. If any modification or variation in the written order is called for, then it is the duty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l then is done out of Court and is not intended to be the operative act which sets all the consequences which follow on the judgment in motion. Judges may, and often do, discuss the matter among themselves and reach a tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment. They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not the judgments either, however heavily and often they may have been signed. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open Court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the Court. That is what constitutes the Judgment . 12. Now upto the moment the judgment is delivered Judges have the right to change their mind. There is a sort of 'locus paenitentiae' and indeed last minute alterations often do occur. Therefore, however much a draft judgment may have been signed beforehand, it is nothing but a draft till formally delivered as the judgment of the Court. Only then does it crystallise into a full-fledged judgment and becomes operative. In the present case, it is not disputed be-fore us that formal written order was not passed by the learned judge either modifying or clarifying the stay order. The respondents have acted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld. Such matters are to be determined only by what is stated in the record of the Court. That which is not so recorded cannot be allowed to be relied upon giving scope to controversy. To permit the atmosphere of the Court to be vitiated by such controversy would be detrimental to the very foundation of the administration of justice. 7. It is regrettable that the learned Advocate in spite of a hint from one of the members of the Court at the early stages of this hearing did not see the impropriety of the course he has adopted and has persisted in it before us. In our opinion, these observations aptly apply to the present case also. 15. It is really regrettable that the State Government or its responsible officers should have followed such a course. The statements of facts made in the letter written by the Government Pleaders are stoutly denied by the petitioners who also claim to be present at the time of hearing with their counsel Shri Jaisinghani. In our opinion, it was wholly improper for the respondents to have acted upon certain oral observations, which, according to them, were made by the learned Judge at the time of hearing. They are expected to determine the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the business carried on by the petitioners and the petitioners were at liberty to carry on the business on the basis of the order passed by this Court. On the other hand, according to the petitioners, they could not have carried on their business unless their licences were renewed or necessary authorisations were issued to them and that too after accepting their deposits. According to Shri Deshmukh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, under the Rules the wholesalers were also not obliged to sell the goods to the petitioner-licensees unless in fact their licences were renewed. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the interpretation now put up on the writ or order issued by this Court, by the respondents is wholly uncalled for. He further stated that in fact the petitioners could not do any business and to substantiate their plea they have produced before this Court their registers. On the other hand, it is the say of the respondents and particularly of the Superintendents of Prohibition and Excise that the licensees, namely, the petitioners were at liberty to carry on their business and must have done so though it is not reflected in their registers. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly, owing to an error of judgment or due to misapprehension of the correct legal position, but in good faith, and without any motive to defeat or defy the order of the Court, then also depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be fair to punish them for their bona fide conduct. If the act or omission was not wilful, then, it cannot be said that the officer acting in good faith on the basis of a legal advice, has deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court, In the present case, after going through the various affidavits filed before us, we are satisfied that the opponents have acted in good faith and bona fide. If the opponents have bona fide thought that in view of the writ issued by the High Court no further action on their part was called for, then we do not think that it could be said that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. 20. It is no doubt true that for obeying the order of the Court, it is not necessary for the officer to approach any of the higher authorities. They are obliged to obey the order of the Court irrespective of any advice given by the superiors. In this context we might make a reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in office by some clerk and it was not placed before the officer to whom it is addressed and who has to comply, would not be of any avail. In our view, it is desirable that the Government should issue suitable instructions to their subordinate officials bringing to their notice the serious consequences of non-compliance with the orders of Court, on the plea that they have to first obtain orders of their official superiors before complying with the Court's orders. Such instructions will obviate any fear or misconception in the mind of these officials that they may be opening themselves to disciplinary action if they comply with the orders of Court. However, as already observed, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is not possible for us to come to the conclusion that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. Further their conduct in tendering the unqualified apology in itself indicates that they were acting bona fide and in good faith. 21. In support of his argument Shri Deshmukh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has relied upon a decision of Patna High Court in Subodh Gopal Bose v. State of Bihar AIR 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his duties, feels that the order is either erroneous or requires modification, the only remedy open to him is to approach the said Court by review and seek such modification or to approach a higher Court by filing an appeal etc. Instead of following such a course, it is not open to him to take upon himself the responsibility of judging the order and then to take an action contrary to or inconsistent with the same on the basis of his own judgment. If the officers are permitted to do any such things, that will mean an end of the very principle of rule of law and administration of justice, on the basis of which the entire fabric of our democratic society has been constructed. The disobedience of the specific order of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the Court as well as it undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. It has disastrous impact. It is likely to subvert the rule of law and the administration of justice, A wilful or intentional disobedience, non-compliance or postponement of compliance is nothing short of the contempt of Court and consequence of such an action need not be overemphasised. However, in view of the fact that the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
