Supreme Court of India
M.L. Sachdev vs Union Of India And Anr on 5 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 311, 1990 SCR SUPL. (2) 545, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 311, 1991 (1) SCC 605, 1991 COMNR 600, 1990 (4) JT 329, 1990 (2) UJ (SC) 737, 1990 (3) COM LJ 297 SC, 1991 SCC (L&S) 606, (1991) 1 RECCRIR 22, (1991) 16 ATC 503, (1991) 2 ALLCRILR 526, (1991) 1 CIVLJ 715
Author: Rangnath Misra
Bench: Rangnath Misra, Kuldip Singh
PETITIONER:
M.L. SACHDEV
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1990
BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
KULDIP SINGH (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 311 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 545
1991 SCC (1) 605 JT 1990 (4) 329
1990 SCALE (2)926
ACT:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 2--M.R.T.P. Com-
mission--Filling up posts Of Chairman and Members--Direction
regarding --Default of by Union of India--Secretary, Minis-
try of Industry--Held guilty of contempt.
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969:
Section 5--Chairman and Members of Commission--Filling up
posts of--Direction regarding--Default of by Union of
India--Secretary, Ministry of Industry--Held guilty of
contempt.
HEADNOTE:
Article 144 of the Constitution requires all authori-
ties, civil and judicial, in the territory of India to act
in aid of the Supreme Court.
Section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Prac-
tices Act, 1969 provides that the Commission shall consist
of a Chairman and not less than two and not more than eight
other members. The said Commission having been rendered
non-functional with the death of its Chairman in December,
1989 and retirement of three out of four members by March,
1990 the petitioner sought a direction to the Union of India
to fill up the said posts. By its order dated April 20, 1990
the Court directed that the Commission be appropriately
constituted within three weeks. By a subsequent order dated
May 25, 1990 the Vacation Judge extended the time to comply
with the said direction till 7th July, 1990. The
respondent-Union having failed to comply with the order by
the said date the petitioner moved a petition for contempt.
In its order dated 12th October, 1990 the Court held that by
not constituting the Commission on or before 7th July, 1990
its direction had been violated and directed issue of notice
on the contempt petition.
In the affidavit filed on October 22, 1990, the Secre-
tary, Department of Company Affairs, Ministry of Industries
of the Union Government averred that he did his best to
obtain orders of appointment of Chairman and the Members of
the Commission as per directions of the Court, that there
has been no wilful negligence or intention to disobey the
orders and that further reasonable time may be granted for
completing the procedure of appointment.
546
Allowing the contempt petition, the Court,
HELD: 1. The respondent-Union in the Ministry of Indus-
tries represented by the Secretary was guilty of contempt of
the Court.
2.1 It was the obligation of the Union of India to
constitute the Commission in the manner prescribed under
Section 5 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1969 and when it failed to do
so the Court had given the direction comply with the re-
quirements of law.
2.2 Once it was found that before the extended date
direction was not being complied with, it was the obligation
of the respondent-contemner to approach the Court for fur-
ther extension of time or to receive such direction as the
Court in its discretion thought it appropriate to make. No
such petition was ever Fried before or after 7th of July,
1990 and even after notice of contempt was served, such step
was not considered necessary and the Union Government re-
mained satisfied by indicating in the affidavit of the
contemner that extension should be given. Since the mandamus
had been addressed to the respondent Union, it could not
keep away from the Court in such a way Without complying
with the direction. The fact that some attempt was made to
reconstitute the Commission does not constitute an extenuat-
ing circumstance.
3.1 By invoking the power of contempt, the Court seeks
only to ensure that the majesty of the institution may not
be lowered and the functional utility of the constitutional
edifice may not be rendered ineffective. It expects the
Union of India to exhibit the most ideal conduct for others
to emulate.
3.2 In view of the offer of unqualified apology and the
fact that the Chairman and a Member have in the meantime
been appointed and the Commission in terms of s. 5 of the
Act has been reconstituted the Court does not propose to
impose any punishment in the hope and trust that there would
be no recurrence of the conduct.
JUDGMENT: