Patna High Court - Orders
Binod Kmar Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 March, 2016
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8748 of 2015
Along with
Interlocutory Application No. 2261 of 2016
======================================================
Binod Kumar Prasad, Son of Late Radha Raman Prasad, Resident of P.O.
& P.S. - Pupari, District - Sitamarhi, Proprietor M/S Swami Distributors,
Baj Patti, Sitamarhi.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner,
Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through the Senior
Regional Manager, Regional Office, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate Collector, Sitamarhi.
4. The District Supply Officer, Sitamarhi.
5. The Block Supply Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Baj Patti,
District - Sitamarhi.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
7 15-03-2016Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Re: Interlocutory Application No. 2261 of 2016 The applicant of the present Interlocutory Application seeks to be added as intervenor respondent for the reason that he is the other dealer in the Sub-division of Pupari of Kerosene Oil supplied by the HPCL and as per practice whatever amount was earmarked for the Sub-division of Pupari was divided almost equally between the two deponent depending on the number of tankers as well as population. It is thus submitted that any order in the present case which relates to the allocation of quota of Kerosene Oil shall directly Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2015 (7) dt.15-03-2016 2/6 affect the interest of the applicant and thus he is a necessary party.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and the other respondents do not object.
Accordingly, let the applicant of Interlocutory Application No. 2261 of 2016 be impleaded as respondent no. 6 in the present writ application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the other respondents shall serve a copy of their pleadings on learned counsel for the newly added respondent no. 6 by day after tomorrow.
Interlocutory Application No. 2261 of 2016 stands disposed off.
Re: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8748 of 2015 Pursuant to order dated 09.03.2016, the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 are present in Court and have also filed their show cause. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and second supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 3 to 5.
The reason why the Court was compelled to direct for the personal appearance of the respondents no. 3 to 5, was that despite it ordering on 13.01.2016 that 'the petitioner be given the amount of Kerosene Oil as has been sanctioned to him by the Competent Authority and further Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2015 (7) dt.15-03-2016 3/6 clarified by order dated 19.01.2016, by which the direction to the Competent Authority i.e., the S.D.O., Pupari in the District of Sitamarhi was modified to the extent that it may be read as the amount as reflected in Annexure-3/A, the same not being complied with, and the Court being informed of the same, the case was listed on 04.02.2016 when learned counsel for the State, by way of last indulgence, took a pass over and on 05.02.2016, the Court gave indulgence to the State and directed the matter to be listed on 10th February, 2016 in order to inform it with regard to the compliance of the earlier order of the Court relating to supply of Kerosene Oil to the petitioner. In the said order, the Court had made it clear that in the event materials are brought before the Court showing non compliance, the Court may initiate appropriate proceeding against the respondents. Even that did not move the respondents no. 3 to 5 to comply with the order and finally on 09.03.2016, the Court had directed for their presence today.
As per the show cause, an explanation has been given to the Court that since the quota for release of the Kerosene Oil are allotted in the previous month for the next month, the same having been done in December, 2015 for the month of January, 2016 and subsequently also the quota for February having been ordered to be released one month in advance, now on 09.03.2016, they have complied with the order dated 13/19.01.2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2015 (7) dt.15-03-20164/6
From the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, which has not been controverted, the quota for January was released on 25.01.2016 and for February on 20.02.2016.
The further explanation of the officers who are present is that as per the departmental circular of the year 2010, the quota has to be released by the 20th of the previous month for the next month and that is why they were handicapped in complying with the order of the Court.
From the stand of the respondents, the Court is constrained to observe that another contempt is made out inasmuch as the defence by the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 is that in view of there being departmental instructions, the High Court order could not be complied with. Further, from the facts it is clear that twice after passing of the order i.e., on 25.01.2016 and 20.02.2016, allotments were made but the order of the Court not having been complied with, leaves the Court with no doubt that contempt has been committed which is gross, deliberate and willful.
For the reasons aforesaid, the Court holds the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 to be guilty of contempt of Court and accordingly proceeds with them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court at this stage gave liberty to the contemnors to make submissions with regard to the quantum of punishment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2015 (7) dt.15-03-20165/6
Faced with the situation, the contemnors expressed their apology for non compliance. The Court would like to make it clear that the law being well settled relating to contempt that apology in the face of an adverse order is no apology and should be rejected outright is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case where the conduct of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 shows that they have absolutely no respect of the order of the Court and in fact have taken the stand that they were giving primacy to the circulars of the department rather than complying with the orders of the Court and it is equally clear that only since the Court on 09.03.2016 has directed for their personal appearance, suddenly they woke up and the order has been complied with which also clearly indicates that even initially there could not have been any impediment in implementing the Court's order vis-à-vis the departmental circular. Further, there being no application whatsoever being filed either for recall, modification or clarification of the orders dated 13/19.01.2016, the Court can only presume that despite being aware of the orders and also having a battery of learned counsel to advise them, the compliance was not there and even till date, no petition has been filed for any recall/ modification/clarification of the orders dated 13/19.01.2016. Upon the Court giving liberty to the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 to personally address the Court with regard to the quantum of Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2015 (7) dt.15-03-2016 6/6 punishment, their only reply is that they are sorry for their conduct.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court may only observe that it has to perform the painful duty of punishing the guilty as it is for upholding the majesty and dignity of the law and moreso of the orders of the Court.
However, despite having recorded the above findings, still as the intention and object of the Court is to ensure compliance of its orders and not to punish, by way of indulgence, as the contemnors have now purged the contempt by complying with the orders of the Court dated 13/19.01.2016, the Court accepts the apology tendered by the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 and closes the issue relating to contempt against them.
As jointly prayed for, the matter be listed on 5th April, 2016 under the heading 'For Orders'.
The personal appearance of the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 stand dispensed with.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U