9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pfrogging unnecessary facts, a brief sketch is furnished hereunder: a) On 03.09.1974, the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 came into the statute book. Section 21 of the Act conferred power on the marketing committees or the Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") to levy cess on the agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area, at the prescribed rate. Explanation-I appended to the said provision brought in a deeming fiction. Rules were enacted in exercise of the power conferred Under Section 49 of the Act. b) Writ petitions were filed by the Respondent No. 1-Association among others before the High Court on the premise that its members purchased the agricultural produce outside the State and thus, no cess is leviable. Rules were struck down leading to the introduction of the Amendment Act, 2000, amending Section 21 of the Act while inserting Section 21A. A challenge made by the Board to the decision of the Full Bench dated 04.04.2001 before this Court resulted in the order dated 08.12.2005, inter alia holding that in view of the subsequent developments, there is no need to go into the issues. c) Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial leave petitions. Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board is permitted to collect tax in accordance with the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court dated 12.9.2008, uninfluenced by the order passed in the contempt proceedings dated 23.10.2009. Post along with SLP(C) No. 11317 of 2009. g) The special leave petitions filed by the Respondent No. 1 challenging the original order of the Division Bench was taken up as Civil Appeal Nos. 9655 of 2013, 9657-9665 of 2013 and 9666 of 2013 and accordingly the order dated 29.09.2021 was passed, which is appositely referred hereunder: Learned Counsel for the Appellants state that the impugned Act has been repealed by an Ordinance issued on 13.07.2020 and subsequently Act has been brought in place. In view of the aforesaid, the issue sought to be debated in the present appeals have become academic and thus it is not disputed that the appeals really do not survive for consideration. Civil appeals are disposed of accordingly. Pending applications also stand disposed of. h) After the order dated 12.09.2008 passed by the Division Bench upholding Section 21 of the Act, there were exchange of communications between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 SCC 613 * Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Tahaman and Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 739 * Bal Kishan Giri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 7 SCC 280 SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the press release followed by the failure on the part of officials working under the Appellants would clearly show the intention to circumvent the orders passed by the Court. Materials were accordingly produced. It is a case of deliberate attempt to overcome the judgment of the Court, notwithstanding the adequate knowledge. As the High Court has considered the relevant materials, there is no need to interfere with the reasoned order passed. DISCUSSION: 8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "willful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697, Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530, Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360, Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600. 12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is "wilful". The word "wilful" introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. "Wilful" means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or neg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is true that in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending and has ordered that it should be heard along with the first appeal. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that under the coercion of contempt proceeding, Appellants cannot be directed to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by asserting that claimants were not the owners of the property in question and that decree was obtained by suppressing the material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that the claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is a nullity. In such a situation, as there was no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order, the initiation of contempt proceedings was wholly unjustified. xxx xxx xxx 22. Pertinently, the special leave petitions were filed by the Respondent against the order dated 28.1.2019, which as aforesaid, did not deal with the question regarding the monthly rent payable by the Respondent but explicitly left the parties to pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Court if the parties pursue their claim(s) before it in that regard. Suffice it to observe that it is not a case of intentional violation or wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court to initiate contempt action against the Respondent. Instead, we hold that it would be open to the parties to pursue their claim(s) in execution proceedings or any other proceedings, as may be permissible in law in respect of the issue(s) under consideration. In such proceedings, all aspects can be considered by the concerned forum/Court on merits in accordance with law. We say no more. 24. Reverting to the allegation about damage caused to the suit property by the Respondent at the time of vacating the same, in our opinion, the Respondent has made out a formidable case that it did not cause any damage, much less permanent damage to the structure in the suit property. Whereas, the Petitioner was relying on photographs concerning the debris on the site left behind at the time of vacating the suit property. The debris cannot cause damage and it is certainly not a case of defacement of the suit property. That position is reinforced from the fact that the water park in the suit premises was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
