Karnataka High Court
M/S India Sugars And Refineries Ltd., vs Tushar Girinath, I A S on 1 August, 2014
Author: K. Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR
C C C NO.100434/2014 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
M/s. The India Sugars & Refineries Ltd.,
Having its Registered Office at
Chitwadgi-583 211,
Hospet,
Bellary District,
Rep. by its Manager-Finance,
Sri P S Krishnamurthy,
Age: 54 years. Complainant
(By Sri Rajesh, Sri Dayanand M Bandi
and Sri H N Shashidhara, Advs., for M/s. Kesvy &
Co., for complainant)
AND
1. Sri Tushar Girinath, IAS,
Secretary,
Commerce and Industries Department,
I Floor, Vikas Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
2
2. Sri S S Pattana Shetty, IAS.,
The Commissioner for Cane Development
and Director of Sugar in Karnataka,
KHB Building, 5th Floor,
'F' Block, CBAB Complex,
Kempegowda Road,
Bangalore-560 009.
3. Sri Aditya Amlan Biswas, I A S,
The Deputy Commissioner,
Bellary District,
Bellary-583 101. Accused
(By Sri Naganand, Sr. Counsel, for Sri
C S Patil, Addl.GA, for respondents)
---
This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the
Constitution of India, praying to register the above
complaint and punish the accused for disobeying the order
dated 19.6.2013 passed in WP No.71336/2012 vide
Annexure-B.
This case coming on for Orders, the same having been
heard and reserved for pronouncement of Orders, Dr.
Bhakthavatsala, J., made the following:
ORDER
The complainant viz., M/s. The India Sugars & Refineries Limited, is before this Court under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the 3 Constitution of India, praying to initiate contempt proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3 for their willful disobedience of the order dated 19.6.2013 made in WP No.71336/2012 on the file of learned Single Judge of this Court, at Annexure-B.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Contempt Petition may be stated as under:
The complainant filed a Writ Petition in No.71336/2012 against the State namely Principal Secretary, Home Department; the Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department; the Commissioner for Cane and Director of Sugar in Karnataka; and the Deputy Commissioner of Bellary District, seeking direction to them to take immediate steps to prevent illegal transportation of sugarcane from the reserved area of the petitioner-Sugar Factory and to implement the provisions of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and stop illegal transportation of sugarcane from the reserved area by erecting barricades, seizing the vehicles carrying sugarcane illegally and take stringent action against the factories 4 indulging in illegal activities. On 19.6.2013, when interlocutory application praying to consider the petitioner's case for grant of interim order came up for hearing, learned Government Advocate narrated about the measures taken by the Deputy Commissioner, such as opening check post at certain points; giving instructions to his subordinate officers to manage the movements of sugarcane; correspondence made with the Police authorities etc. It was further contended that since the sugar session 2012-13 period is over, no interim relief can be granted. It was also contended that if any concrete complaint is brought to the notice of the authorities by the petitioner in future with regard to violation of Sugarcane Control Order and notification, an action in accordance with law will be taken Learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, held that the Sugar Cane Session of 2012-13 is over and thus it is futile to consider the lapses and omissions attributed to the authorities, but still observed that for the coming year 2013-14, if any grievance is made by the petitioners bringing to the notice of the authorities as to 5 violation of provisions, the authorities have to initiate action and ensure that such violation do not recur and the Deputy Commissioner has to take concrete action and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is pleaded that sugar crushing session for 2013-14 commenced on 1.10.2013 and complainant made complaints dated 8.11.2013, 11.11.2013, 12.11.2013, 2.1.2014, 13.1.2014, 7.1.2014, 28.1.2014, 10.3.2014, 11.3.2014, 14.3.2014, 15.3.2014, 17.3.2014, 18.3.2014, 20.3.2014 and 22.3.2014 to the accused with regard to illegal transportation of sugarcane from the reserved area of the complainant as per Annexures-C, C1 to C14, but the accused failed to prevent illegal diversion of sugarcane from the reserved area and therefore filed contempt petition on 21.4.2014 alleging that the accused failed to initiate action and disobeyed the order dated 19.6.2013 at Annexure-B. Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that contempt proceedings may be initiated against the accused for willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge, at Annexure-B. 6
4. Sri Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused, submitted that separate statement of objections filed by accused Nos.1,2 and 3 may be perused and that the accused have highest regards for the orders of the Court as Officers of the instrumentality of the State and their duty is to maintain dignity and majesty of this Court by complying with the directions; the accused never neglected or refused to comply with the orders of this Court; the complaint is motivated, mischievous and constitutes an abuse of the process of Court; the complainant is filing successive, vexatious proceedings against the senior officers with a view to keep them under constant threat and thereby trying to overcome various failures of the complaint in fulfilling its statutory obligation and the financial obligation to vast section of sugarcane growing farmers and the complaint is liable to be rejected in limine. He further submits that the order dated 24.7.2013 passed in CCC No.3322/2012 (filed by 7 the complainant against the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, and other Officers) holding that prima facie disobedience of the order dated 15.7.2011 is the subject matter in SLP Nos.
2125 & 2187-2188/2014 and the Apex Court has stayed the said order. He further contends that by order dated 19.6.2013 at Annexure-B, liberty was given to the complainant to make representation to the Deputy Commissioner concerned in the event of violation and it cannot be a ground to file complaint as against accused Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that the crushing record of the complainant for the past 5 previous years showed that they have not crushed sugar cane to its optimum level and the highest crushing being 235000 MT and 238514 MT during the year 2011-12 and 2013-14, respectively, but still the complainant makes an allegation that sugarcane was illegally transported out of the reserved area. It is also contended that as per the letter dated 28.4.2014 of the 3rd accused/Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, he has put up check posts restraining the farmers from transporting sugarcane to 8 the outside factories and since elections to the Lok Sabha was commenced during peak cane cutting months of January, February and March 2014, the entire revenue Police and State Machinery was fully engaged in Hampi Utsav and thereafter the elections. In spite of that the Deputy Commissioner, who has to carry out functions such as conducting of elections, distribution of food grains, maintaining law and order, natural calamities in addition to daily administrative functions, he has taken all adequate measures to ensure supply of sugar cane to the complainant Factory and as a result of which the complainant Factory could crush nearly 2.5 lakh metric tonnes during sugar session 2013-14. Therefore, it is contended that the allegation made against the accused that they have disobeyed the order of this Court is false, baseless and prays for dropping the contempt proceedings.
5. In view of the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
9
Whether a prima facie case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3 on the ground that they have wilfully disobeyed the order dated 19.6.2013 made in WP No.71336/2012 while considering the prayer for interim relief in the Writ Petition on the file of learned Single Judge of this Court ?
6. Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:
The complainant filed a Writ Petition in No.71336/2012 against the Principal Secretary, Home Department and the present accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking direction to take steps to prevent illegal transportation of sugarcane from the reserved area of the petitioner's Sugar Factory by erecting barricades, seizing the vehicle, carrying sugarcane illegally and to take stringent action against Factories indulging in illegal activities and enforce the provisions of the Karnataka Sugarcane (Regulations of Distribution) (Hospet) Order, 1974 and Sugar (Regulation and Distribution (India Sugars and 10 Refineries Ltd.) Order, 2006 for the Sugar Session year 2012-13, for which the sugar crushing operation started from 4.10.2012. It is also averred in the Writ Petition that a letter dated 11.10.2012 was addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, requesting him to stop illegal transportation of sugarcane.
7. The respondents entered their appearance in the Writ Petition and filed a joint statement of objections contending that though have taken all measures to stop illegal transportation and the Writ Petition came to be filed with an intention to harass them.
8. From the material placed on record by the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary (Accused No.3) herein, we take note that keeping in view that the issue is pertaining to farmers and the obligation, the accused has taken all possible measures in implementing the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order and directions given in the Writ Petition. As a matter of fact, the complainant-Sugar Factory has crushed more sugarcane than the previous sugar cane session years. 11 It is pertinent to mention that the order dated 19.6.2013 said to be disobeyed by the accused came to be passed in so far as interim prayer made in the Writ Petition, though the Writ Petition itself become infructuous by efflux of time. The order in question is beyond cause of action and contrary to the dictum of the Apex Court that - no order affecting the right of the parties shall be passed when the case itself becomes infructuous. If the case of the complainant is that hundreds of farmers are illegally transporting sugar cane, what is the Police force that is required to control? Court cannot blindly order to do something which is beyond the capacity of the Officer. However, the Deputy Commissioner has taken all measures to obey the order with available force. Courts passing orders shall apply its mind as to possibility of compliance of the order or direction. The officials of the State cannot be condemned for the acts beyond their control. The total allegation is against the farmers. What is the action taken by the complainant against the farmers alleged to be violated the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. It is nothing but a case of 'pot 12 calling the kettle black'. The accused have no personal interest. The contempt proceedings initiated by order dated 24.7.2013 against the accused in CCC No.3322/2012 with regard to issuing permits to the farmers, which has been stayed by the Apex Court in SLP Nos.2125 & 2187- 2188/2014 has no bearing in this case to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused. We see no willful disobedience of the order by the accused.
Hence, we answer the point formulated for our consideration in the negative.
9. For the reasons stated supra, we pass the following order:
Contempt proceedings are dropped.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bjs