Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 20 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1987CRILJ627, 1986(1)WLN502
ORDER I.S. Israni, J.
1. This is a contempt petition filed Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by one Mahendra Kumar bringing to our notice that the non-petitioners-accused have committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the stay order passed by this Court dt. 15-11-1984 which has been marked as Annex. A. It is submitted by the petitioner that a stay application numbered as D.B. Second Stay Application No. 280/1984 was filed and after hearing both the parties this Court passed an order whereby the contemners were directed to prepare the inventory of the liquor incorporating its Brand in the presence of the petitioner-appellant or his representative before the auction of the liquor was made on 16-11-1984.
2. It is further stated that the representative"75f the petitioner submitted an application to the non-petitioner contemner No. 3 on 16-11-1984 before the beginning of the auction. He made a request that before the auction is started the inventory should be prepared brandwise as directed by this Court. However, no heed was paid to his request. Thereafter he gave an application in writing to this effect requesting that inventory of the liquor brandwise lying in the godown may be prepared. It was also stated therein that a copy of the stay order dated 15-11-1984 had already been produced before him. It was also stated in the application that the material was lying with the department since long under its own lock and key and, therefore, it was essential that a list of the liquor brandwise may be prepared in his presence before the auction is made. It was also stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on 16-11-1984 there were no bidders and, therefore, no inconvenience should have been caused to the contemner No. 3 to prepare the list of liquor brandwise as directed by this Court. It is further stated that at about 5 p.m. on the same day another application (Annx. C) was moved in writing by the representative of the petitioner requesting the contemner No'. 3 repeating that the list as directed by this Court had not been prepared and that he may be" informed of any further action that might be taken in this respect. On this application the contemner No. 3 made an endorsement to the effect that since on 16-11-1984 none has appeared to give bid for the auction, hence the auction will again be held on 17-11-1984 at 10.30 a.m.
3. Thereafter a telegram marked Annx. D was sent to the Commissioner, contemner No. 3 informing him that no brandwise list of liquor has been prepared before the auction as directed by this Court in the presence of appellant or his representative and that a direction may be given to the Auctioning Authority to comply with the order of the Court. It is further stated that on the next day, i.e. on 17-11-1984 another application was also given by the representative of the petitioner to the contemner No. 3 stating therein that no list incorporating the brand of the liquor was prepared on 16-11-1984 as directed by this Court and that a copy of the list of the liquor was given to him on 16-11-1984 at about 12.30 p.m. but this list does not show the brand of the stock of the liquor to be auctioned. Various other objections with regard to the list were also raised in this application and it was again requested that a list incorporating the brand of the liquor to be auctioned should be prepared and the auction should be held thereafter. On this application the contemner No. 3 wrote a remark that this application was filed before him at 1.30 p.m. along with eight copies of bills which the petitioner's representative should have filed before the auction was started as per directions of this Court. One lot of the liquor had already been auctioned by this time. The representative of the petitioner Amar Singh was asked to produce credit note regarding the bills as the same were incomplete unless the credit note was also produced. The stock of the liquor was auctioned without preparing any list incorporating the brand of the fiquor as directed by this Court. The petitioner,therefore, submits that the non-petitioners-contemners have committed willful disobedience and shown disrespect to theorder dt. 15-11-1984 passed by this Court and,therefore, the contemners be suitably punished for committing the contempt of the order of this Court. Affidavits have also been filed by the petitioner and his representative Amar Singh in support of the application.
4. The contemners Nos. 2 arid T have filed separate replies to the petition. The contemnec No. 2 Gopesh Bhatt Commissioner, Excise, Rajasthan has stated in his reply that the telegram of the petitioner reached him on 17-11-1984. On the same day he tried to contact the committee which was auctioning the goods at Bhim but he could not do so. Therefore, he personally reached Bhim in the evening at about 5 p.m. but before that the auction proceedings had already been completed. He has, therefore, stated that in the above circumstances he had not flouted the orders of this Court and he always pays highest esteem to the orders of this Court and if he is found lacking in any respect, he expressed his sincere regrets for the same. An affidavit has also been filed by him in support of the reply mentioned above. In the reply filed on behalf of contemners Nos. 1 and 3 it has been admitted that they do not dispute the order passed by this Court on 15-11-1984. However, it has been submitted that in fact the inventory of the goods was prepared in presence of the petitioner's representative earlier by the District Excise Officer (Head-quarters) on 27th and 28th Feb. 1984 and 7th March 1984 of godown Nos. 1 to 10 and thereafter inventories of two godowns Nos. 11 and 12 were also prepared in presence of petitioner's representative. Therefore, it was bona fide understood by the contemner No. 3 that a fresh inventory need not be prepared because the inventory . was ready which wasprepared in presence of the petitioner. It has, therefore, bden submitted that the order of this Court was bona fide understood to him that the inventory has to be prepared and since it was ready, therefore, repetition of the same was only avoided. It has been further mentioned in the reply that another order of the Court passed on 26-11-1984 was also complied with by the respondent contemners. It is, therefore, submitted that the contemner No. 3 had no intention to flout the orders of this Court but in the peculiar circumstances of the case it was bona fide thought by him that fresh preparation of the inventory list will be duplication and it will also take few days. Since the inventory had already been prepared in presence of the petitioner's representative earlier, therefore, the same was not repeated. It has also been stated that without prejudice to what has been submitted above, the contemner No. 3 tenders unconditional apology and it has been prayed that the notice of contempt be kindly discharged. An affidavit in support of this reply has also been filed by contemner No. 3 Ashok Bhandari, District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
5. In the rejoinder to the reply filed by the contemners the petitioner has stated that the contemners had wilfully and deliberately flouted the orders of this Court by not preparing the inventory incorporating the various brands of the liquor in their possession in spite of repeated requests made orally and in writing. It has also been stated in the reply that the total quantity of the liquor in possession of the Excise Department when the same was sealed was 2,00,035.25 Ipl whereas when the same was auctioned it was only 1,74,324.51 Ipl meaning thereby that the liquor to the extent of 25,710.74 Ipl was missing and this missing liquor was worth Rs. 5 lacs and the excise duty over it comes to Rs. 12 lacs (approx).
6. In this petition we are not concerned whether the contemners have obeyed the order of this Court dt. 26-11-1984 or that the liquor in possession of the Excise Department was more than what was auctioned on 17-11-1984 but are confined to the consideration whether the contemners have wilfully and deliberately flouted the stay order dt 16-11-1984 passed by this Court. There is no dispute that the contemners were having knowledge of the stay order dt. 15-11-1984 as the same was passed in presence of counsel for both the parties. It is also admitted that the applications marked Annxs. B & C were given to contemner 3 on the spot where the auction was to take place and telegram marked Annx. D was sent to contemner No. 3 bringing to his notice the refusal of contemner No. 3 to prepare the list of liquor incorporating the various brands as directed by this Court. The only question, therefore, involved is whether the contemners have wilfully and deliberately flouted the stay order of this Court Dt./- 15-11-1984 or there was any bona fide reason or misunderstanding regarding the direction given in the stay order. The explanation given by the contemner No. 3 is that in the peculiar circumstances of this case it was bona fide thought that fresh preparation of inventory lists will be mere duplication and, therefore, it was thought that it is not necessary to do so.
7. Taking the explanation given into consideration by the contemner No. 2 it is clear from the petition and the material on record that he was not present on 16-11-84 at Bhim where the auction of the liquor was to take place. Only contemner No. 3 was present on that day. It is also clear that the petitioner sent a telegram to the contemner No. 2 informing him of the refusal of contemner No. 3 to obey the stay order of this Court dt. 15-11-1984 and praying that a direction be given to the Auctioning Authorities to comply with the order of this Court. It has been stated by contemner No. 2 in his reply that the telegram reached him on 17-11-1984 and he tried to contact the Committee which was auctioning the goods at Bhim but could not do so. Therefore, he personally reached Bhim but he could reach there only at 5 p.m. and before that the auction proceedings had been completed. An affidavit in support of this plea has also been filed by the contemner No. 2. We are, therefore, of considered opinion that contemner No. 2 cannot be held to be personally responsible for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court inasmuch as he was not present on the site of auction on 16-11-1984 and being informed by the petitioner through telegram which reached him on 17-11-1984 when he failed to contact the Committee for the Auction he personally went to Bhim but reached there only at 5 p.m. and by that time the auction was over.
8. Now coming to the case of contemner No. 3 in whose supervision the auction of liquor was conducted on 16th and 17th Nov. 1984 at Bhim, it is admitted by him that he did have knowledge of the order of this Court dt. 15-11-1984 and a copy of the same had also been given to him by the representative of the petitioner on 16-11-84 at Bhim. The stay order passed by this Court on 15-11-84 is absolutely clear and two interpretations cannot be given to the same. The order clearly mentions that "we consider it proper to direct that the respondents shall, in the presence of the appellant, prepare an inventory of the liquor to be auctioned incorporating brand of that liquor, which is scheduled to be held on Nov. 16,1984 at 11 a.m. at Bhim. The appellant has been informed that if he wants to be present, he or his representative should do so before the Auction Authorities at Bhim before the time fixed for auction. If the appellant submits the vouchers of the liquor to be auctioned to the Auction Authorities, they will accept the same." Therefore, it is absolutely clear from this order that a positive and clear direction after hearing both the parties had been given that before the auction is started on Nov. 16, 1984 at Bhim the respondents shall prepare an inventory of the liquor to be auctioned incorporating the brand of that liquor in the same. This admittedly has not been done. In the reply submitted by the contemner No. 3 it is mentioned that he bona fide understood that a fresh inventory need not be prepared because the inventory of the liquor in possession of the Excise Department had already been prepared in the months of February and March, 1984. Therefore, he thought that preparation of fresh inventory lists would be a mere duplication. learned Counsel for the contemners when enquired, admitted that in the lists of liquor prepared earlier the brand of the liquor had not been incorporated. It is, therefore, clear that even though the lists of the liquor which was prepared earlier did not incorporate the brand of the liquor as directed by this Court vide its order dt. 15-11-1984 and in spite of repeated Requests made orally and in writing by the petitioner's representative, the said list as directed by this Court was not prepared. This could have been easily prepared, more so, when there were no bidders at the auction on the first day, i.e. on 16-11-1984. It may also be mentioned that if the respondents contemners thought that preparation of the fresh lists as directed in the order dt. 15-11-1984 was not necessary in view of the fact that the lists of the liquor were already prepared this could have been pleaded at the time when the second stay application No. 230/84 was argued. However, no such plea was raised at that time and, therefore, it is evident that this plea now raised in the reply by the contemner No. 3 is only an afterthought and an effort to give some cover to the disobedience of the order of this Court. We are, therefore, of considered opinion that the contemner No. 3 has wilfully and deliberately flouted the order of this Court dt. 15-11-1984 even though he had full knowledge of the same and he was repeatedly requested by the petitioner to act in accordance with the order of this Court. He ignored all the pleas of the petitioners and for the reasons best known to him carried on the proceedings of-auction wilfully disobeying the order of this Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that he is guilty of committing wilful and deliberate contempt of the Court.
9. Punishment for contempt of court is inflicted not with the view to protect the individual or the collective dignity of the court but to ensure the confidence of the public in the administration of free, fearless and impartial justice and to avert the tremendous public mischief which will inevitably be caused if such confidence is allowed to be undetermined or impaired. Even when the violation of the Court's order may not be intentional still it may amount to contempt of court if the violation of the same is wilful. If there is something to mislead on the plain reading of the order, then disobedience of such an order may not ' amount to contempt. The determining factor is not harm done to the individual, i.e. opposite party in whose favour the order has been made, but the harm done to the future administration of justice.' In the case of Advocate General, Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that:
.... The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court had the duty of protecting the interest of the public, in the due administration of justice and so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for Contempt of Court, nor in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression "Contempt of Court" may x seems to suggest, but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or; interfered with.
It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage......
The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its "protection lost hope". Per Judge, Curties Raleigh quoted in Jennisen v. Baker (1972) 1 All ER 997 at p. 1006.
In the case of Aligarh Municipality v. E, T. Mazdoor Union , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under:
...Indeed, we are also of the view that the certified copy of the order had actually been shown to him. We have, therefore, no doubt that the Demand Inspector is guilty of contempt of court by knowingly and deliberately disobeying the order of the HighCourt...........Contempt proceeding against a person who has failed to comply with the Court's order serves a dual purpose: (1) vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct and (2) coercion to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him.
10. Bearing the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in the present case if we sentence contemner No. 3 Ashok Bhandari, District Excise Officer, Udaipur to a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. We order accordingly. We also order that he will pay Rs. 500/- as costs to the petitioner. One month's time is granted to him for payment of fine and costs. If fine is not paid within this period, contemner No. 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. If the costs are not paid the same shall be recovered in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.