advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Contempt of court - failure to create a new post as per the orders - Contempt petition for implementation of orders - Apex court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of High court -and held that No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law - since the High court not directed to create a superannuation post in main writ order , now can not supplement the same by contempt of court = SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ... APPELLANT (S) ONGC & ORS. VERSUS M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS. ... RESPONDENT (S) = 2014 ( February Part )judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41199

Contempt of court - failure to create a new post as per the orders - Contempt petition for implementation of orders - Apex court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of High court -and held that No order or direction supplemental to what has been  already  expressed  should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the  domain  of  the
contempt law - since the High court not directed to create a superannuation post in main writ order , now can not supplement the same by contempt of court =
By  a notification dated 08.09.1994 issued under Section  10(1)  of  the  Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 employment  of  contract  labour in various works in the Corporation, including the work of Radio  Operators,was prohibited. =
Writ allowed 
The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners as Marine Assistant Radio Operators  with  effect  from  8.9.1994  on  the  basis  of  the
      abolition of contract labour and as per the recommendations dated 4-6-
      1999 of the Ministry of  Petroleum  and  Natural  Gas,  Government  of
      India, to the first respondent  and  the  approval  of  the  competent
      authority as communicated in the fax dated 23-9-1999 to the third  and
      fourth respondents with all monetary benefits and all other  attendant
      benefits.  If for any reason, there is no cadre  of  Marine  Assistant
      Radio Operator or there are no sufficient posts are available  in  the
      cadre of Marine Assistant  Radio  Operators  to  accommodate  all  the
      petitioners, the respondents are directed to give “pay protection”  to
      the petitioners and sanction them the scale of pay  as  applicable  to
      the Marine Assistant Radio Operators as recommended by the Ministry of
      Petroleum and Natural Gas.”
For non implementation - contempt filed =

 whether there has been  any  disobedience  or willful violation of the same.  =

Decided issues cannot be reopened;  nor  the plea of equities can be considered.  
Courts  must  also  ensure  that  while
considering a contempt plea the  power  available  to  the  Court  in  other
corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is  not  trenched  upon.   
No order or direction supplemental to what has been  already  expressed  should
be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the  domain  of  the
contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate  in  other  jurisdictions
vested in the Court, as noticed above.  =   

  Applying the above settled principles to the case  before  us,  it  is
clear that the direction of the High Court  for  creation  of  supernumerary
posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator cannot be countenanced.  
 Not  only the Courts must act with utmost restraint before  compelling  the  executive
to create additional posts, the  impugned  direction  virtually  amounts  to
supplementing the directions contained in the order of the High Court  dated
02.8.2006.  
The alterative direction i.e. to grant parity of pay could  very
well have been occasioned by the stand taken by the Corporation with  regard
to the necessity of keeping in existence the cadre itself  in  view  of  the
operational needs of the Corporation.  
If despite the specific  stand  taken
by the Corporation in this regard the High Court was of the  view  that  the
respondents should be absorbed as Marine Assistant  Radio  Operator  nothing
prevented the High  Court  from  issuing  a  specific  direction  to  create
supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator.  The  same  was  not
done.  
If that be so, the direction to create  supernumerary  posts  at  the
stage of exercise of the contempt jurisdiction has to be  understood  to  be
an addition to the initial order passed in the Writ Petition.  
The  argument
that such a direction is implicit in the  order  dated  02.08.2006  is  self
defeating.  
Neither, is  such  a  course  of  action  open  to  balance  the
equities, i.e. not to foreclose the promotional avenues of the  petitioners,
as vehemently urged by Shri Rao.  
The issue is one of jurisdiction  and  not of justification.  
Whether the direction issued would be  justified  by  way
of review or in exercise of any other jurisdiction is an  aspect  that  does
not concern us in the present  case.  Of  relevance  is  the  fact  that  an
alternative direction had been issued by the High Court by its  order  dated
02.08.2006  and  the  appellants,  as  officers  of  the  Corporation,  have
complied with the same.  They cannot  be,  therefore,   understood  to  have
acted in willful disobedience of the said order of  the  Court.    
All  that
was required in terms of the second direction having been complied  with  by
the appellants, we are of the view that the order  dated  02.08.2006  passed
in W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 stands  duly  implemented.  
Consequently,  we  set
aside the Order dated 19.01.2012 passed in  Contempt  Petition  No.  161  of
2010, as well as the impugned order  dated  11.07.2012  passed  in  Contempt
Appeal No.2 of 2012 and allow the present appeal.

2014 ( February Part )judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41199
P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
                        REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL  NO.1816 OF 2014
                 Special Leave Petition (C) NO.23272 OF 2012


SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD.         ...    APPELLANT (S)
ONGC & ORS.

                                   VERSUS

M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS.           ...  RESPONDENT (S)



                               J U D G M E N T


RANJAN GOGOI, J.


1.    Leave granted.

2.     Aggrieved by a direction of the Madras High Court in exercise of  its
contempt jurisdiction to create supernumerary posts, this  appeal  has  been
filed by the respondents in the contempt proceeding.

3.    Shorn off unnecessary  details  the  core  facts  that  would  need  a
recital are enumerated hereinbelow.

      The respondents in the present appeal were engaged as Radio  Operators
on contract basis in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation  Ltd.  (hereinafter
referred to as “the Corporation”), a Public Sector Undertaking, inter  alia,
engaged in on-shore and off-shore oil and natural  gas  exploration.   By  a
notification dated 08.09.1994 issued under Section  10(1)  of  the  Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 employment  of  contract  labour
in various works in the Corporation, including the work of Radio  Operators,
was prohibited.  A Writ  Petition  bearing  No.  15211  of  1991  seeking  a
direction to the Corporation to treat the contract Radio  Operators  at  par
with the regular Marine Assistant Radio Operators  was  pending  before  the
High Court at that point of time.  Subsequently, the union  representing  56
number of contract employees engaged as Radio Operators  instituted  another
Writ Petition i.e. W.P. No. 1178 of 1996 seeking the same relief.

4.    In Air India Statutory Corporation and Others Vs. United Labour  Union
and Others[1] this Court took the  view  that  upon  abolition  of  contract
labour the persons engaged on contract basis became  the  employees  of  the
principal employer and hence entitled to regularization under the  principal
employer.
The said  view  has  been  subsequently  dissented  from,  though
prospectively, in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.  Vs.  National  Union
Waterfront Workers & Ors.[2].
Following the decision of this Court  in  Air
India Statutory Corporation and  Others  (supra)  the  writ  petitions  were
allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court  by  Order  dated
29.01.1997.  
The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Corporation against  the
said order was dismissed.  The matter was carried to this  Court  in  S.L.P.
(Civil) No.20951 of 1997 which was disposed on 12.1.1998 with the  following
operative direction.

      “Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing  on
      behalf of the petitioner states that those of the 56 workmen  who  are
      found to be qualified in terms of the appropriate regulations,  as  in
      force at the relevant time, shall be absorbed as contemplated  by  the
      judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation & Ors. vs.  United  Labour
      Union & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 377.  In view of this statement the SLP does
      not survive and is disposed of.”


5.          Following the aforesaid order  of  this  Court  in  the  special
leave petition the respondents herein  were  absorbed  as  “Junior  Helpers”
with effect from 29.1.1997 by an order dated 2.4.1998.  Their pay was  fixed
at the bottom of the basic pay of Class IV  employees  of  the  Corporation.
It may be noticed, at this stage, that the respondents  being  employees  of
the  Southern  Region  of  the  Corporation  were  posted  at  Karaikal  and
Rajamundry stations.

6.    It  appears  that  thereafter  a  Committee  was  constituted  by  the
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas which recommended that  the  Corporation
is bound to absorb all the contract Radio Operators who  had  the  requisite
qualification in the post of Marine Assistant Radio  Operators  with  effect
from 8.9.1994 and in the pay  scale  applicable  to  the  said  post  as  on
8.9.1994.

7.    As the aforesaid recommendation of the Committee was not  being  given
effect to, the present respondents instituted another proceeding before  the
High Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 21518 of  2000  seeking  a  direction  for
their absorption as  Marine  Assistant  Radio  Operators  with  effect  from
8.9.1994.

      Specifically, it must be taken note of  that  in  the  aforesaid  writ
proceeding the Corporation had, inter alia,  contended  that  there  was  no
requirement of Marine Assistant  Radio  Operators  in  the  Southern  Region
Business Centre (SRBC) or other regions of the Corporation as there were  no
adequate off-shore operations.  It was also contended  that  on  account  of
the upgraded technology available,  there  is  also  no  necessity  for  the
service of a Radio Operator as with the advancement of technology the  users
themselves were in a position to operate the system without  the  assistance
of an operator.

8.    By order dated 2.8.2006 the writ petition was  disposed  of  with  the
following findings and operative directions:

      "32.  Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
      case in the light of the report of the committee, recommendation  made
      by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the judgment  of  the
      Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation case, cited supra,  I
      am of the considered view that the absorption of  the  petitioners  by
      the respondent corporation as Junior Helpers with the pay of Rs.2,282/-
       old basic bottom of Class IV  cadre  was  not  fair  and  proper  and
      certainly not in strict compliance of the  undertaking  given  by  the
      respondent corporation before the Supreme Court.  On the other hand, I
      am of the considered view that the  petitioners  are  entitled  to  be
      absorbed as Marine Assistant Radio Operators.

      33.   In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.   The
      respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners as Marine Assistant
      Radio Operators  with  effect  from  8.9.1994  on  the  basis  of  the
      abolition of contract labour and as per the recommendations dated 4-6-
      1999 of the Ministry of  Petroleum  and  Natural  Gas,  Government  of
      India, to the first respondent  and  the  approval  of  the  competent
      authority as communicated in the fax dated 23-9-1999 to the third  and
      fourth respondents with all monetary benefits and all other  attendant
      benefits.  If for any reason, there is no cadre  of  Marine  Assistant
      Radio Operator or there are no sufficient posts are available  in  the
      cadre of Marine Assistant  Radio  Operators  to  accommodate  all  the
      petitioners, the respondents are directed to give “pay protection”  to
      the petitioners and sanction them the scale of pay  as  applicable  to
      the Marine Assistant Radio Operators as recommended by the Ministry of
      Petroleum and Natural Gas.”



9.    The aforesaid order dated 2.8.2006 was challenged by  the  Corporation
in Writ Appeal No. 1290 of 2006 which was dismissed  on  19.12.2006  with  a
direction to the Corporation to implement the order of  the  learned  Single
Judge dated 2.8.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of  receipt
of a copy of the order.  Two other writ petitions i.e. W.P.  Nos.  27500  of
2006 and 27529 of 2006 seeking similar relief(s)  were  also  allowed  by  a
separate order of the learned Single Judge dated  4.4.2007.   The  aforesaid
orders were challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.  765  of  2008
and 766-767 of 2008 which were heard alongwith  Transfer  Petition  (C)  No.
889 of 2007 which was filed by similarly situated persons.  By  order  dated
30.10.2009 all the civil appeals and the transfer  petition  were  dismissed
by this Court with the following directions :

      “We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf  of  the
      parties.

            Learned counsel appearing for  the  parties  have  taken  us  to
      various documents and pleadings.  On consideration of the totality  of
      the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, no case  has
      been  made  out  for  our   interference   under   our   extraordinary
      jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution  of  India.   These
      appeals are accordingly dismissed.

            However, as prayed for by the learned senior  counsel  appearing
      on behalf of the appellants, we direct the appellant Oil & Natural Gas
      Corporation to implement the orders within three months.

            Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 889 of 2007

            In view  of  our  order  passed  in  the  Civil  Appeals  above-
      mentioned, no orders are necessary  in  the  transfer  petition.   The
      transfer petition is disposed of.”



10.   Alleging  non-implementation  and  disobedience  of  the  order  dated
2.8.2006 passed in W.P. No.  21518  of  2000  as  affirmed  by  order  dated
19.12.2006 in Writ Appeal No.  1290  of  2006  and  order  dated  30.10.2009
passed in Civil Appeal No.765 of 2008, Contempt  Petition  (C)  No.  161  of
2010 was filed before the High Court  wherein  the  impugned  direction  for
creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator was  made
by the order dated 19.1.2012.   The  said  order  has  been  affirmed  by  a
Division Bench of the High Court by  the  impugned  order  dated  11.7.2002.
Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

11.   At this stage, it may be necessary to take note of two other  Contempt
Petition Nos. 141 of 2010 and 343 of 2010 which had been instituted  in  the
High Court against the similar order dated 4.4.2007 passed in Writ  Petition
Nos. 27500 and 27529 of 2006 which order had  also  been  affirmed  by  this
Court in the connected civil appeals i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.766-767 of  2008,
as already noticed.  Regard must also be had to Contempt  Petition  (C)  No.
130 of 2010 filed  before  this  Court  by  similarly  situated  persons  in
respect of the order dated 30.10.2009 passed in Transfer  Petition  (C)  No.
889 of 2007.

12.   Insofar as Contempt  Petition  (C)  Nos.  141  and  343  of  2010  are
concerned, the same has been dismissed by the High Court by its order  dated
31.8.2010 holding that no case  of  commission  of  contempt  is  made  out.
Contempt Petition No. 130 of 2010  before  this  Court  was  ordered  to  be
closed in view of the averments made in an affidavit  dated  9.3.2011  filed
on behalf of the Corporation.  Paras 6 and 7 of  the  said  affidavit  would
require to be taken note of and are being extracted below.

      “6.   I say that since there  is  no  vacant  post  in  the  cadre  of
      Assistant Marine Radio Operator  in  the  Southern  Region  (to  which
      region the Respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.  765-767  of  2008  before
      this Hon’ble Court belonged and to which region the Petitioners in the
      present Contempt Petition belong) and,  no  vacancy  in  the  post  of
      Assistant Marine Radio Operator in  the  Southern  Region  has  arisen
      after the order and judgment dated 2.8.2006  of the Ld.  Single  Judge
      in Writ Petition No. 21518 of 2000, the respondents in the said Appeal
      could not be accommodated  in  the  post  of  Assistant  Marine  Radio
      Operator.  Consequently, until such vacancies arise and, in accordance
      with the direction issued by the Ld. Single Judge of  the  High  Court
      (and upheld by this Hon’ble Court), Respondent No. 1took the following
      steps :

           (i)   deployed the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 765/2008, who
                 formed a separate protected class, as Supernumerary Helpers
                 in the scale of pay applicable to  Assistant  Marine  Radio
                 Operators, so that they are not rendered idle.

           (ii)  gave “pay protection” to the said respondents for the  pay
                 drawn by Assistant Marine Radio Operator from the  date  of
                 their absorption, i.e. 08.09.1994.

           (iii) paid them the difference between the “protected  pay”  and
                 the pay previously drawn by them as Junior Helpers from the
                 date of their absorption on 08.09.1994.



      7.    I say that even as on date there is no vacancy in  the  post  of
      Assistant Marine Radio Operator (Southern Region).  However, since the
      Petitioners  herein  have  sought  to  be  treated  at  par  with  the
      Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 765  of  2008,  Respondent  No.  1  is
      prepared to, in order to give a quietus to the matter  extend  to  the
      Petitioners the same treatment and benefits aforesaid extended to  the
      Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 765 of 2008 with effect from the  date
      of their absorption i.e. with  effect  from  18.2.1998,  as  has  been
      prayed for by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition filed  by  them  in
      the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh.”


13.   The question that arises in the present appeal,  in  the  backdrop  of
the facts noted above, is whether the appellants who  are  the  officers  of
the Corporation and had complied with the  alternative  direction  contained
in the order dated 2.8.2006 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.  21518  of  2000
would still be liable for commission of contempt and the only way  in  which
the appellants can purge themselves of the contempt allegedly  committed  is
by creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators.   An
answer to the above question centres around the contours  of  the  power  of
the Court while exercising its contempt jurisdiction.

14.   We have heard Shri Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney  General  for
the  appellants  and  Shri  P.P.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel   for   the
respondents.

15.   The learned Attorney General has urged that the question of  the  very
necessity  of  having/continuing  the  posts  of  Marine   Assistant   Radio
Operators in the Corporation was a live issue in Writ Petition No. 21518  of
2000 as the Corporation had contended  that  the  work  requirement  of  the
Corporation did not justify the continuation of the post  in  the  cadre  of
Marine Assistant Radio  Operators,  particularly,  in  the  SRCB  where  the
Corporation was not engaged in any off-shore operation.  It  is  urged  that
in the light of the stand taken by the Corporation,  the  option/alternative
direction of granting parity of pay to the respondents was  issued.   It  is
not in dispute that the Corporation had complied with  the  said  direction.
In a situation where the operational requirements  of  the  Corporation  did
not justify the retention of the posts of Marine Assistant  Radio  Operators
any further, its officers cannot be faulted for not  creating  supernumerary
posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators  and  instead  creating  posts  of
Junior Helpers to accommodate the respondents  and  thereafter  giving  them
protection/parity of pay in terms of  the  option  granted   by   the   High
Court.   The  learned Attorney  has further submitted that  there  being  no
direction for creation of posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators  in  the
order dated 2.8.2006 it was beyond the power of the learned  Judge,  hearing
the Contempt Petition, to issue such a direction.   The  said  error,  being
apparent, ought to have been corrected in the appeal filed before  the  High
Court. The order of the Division  Bench  dated  11.7.2012  impugned  in  the
present appeal is, therefore, open to interference in the present appeal.

14.   On the other hand Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing  for
the respondents has contended that an  obligation  to  create  supernumerary
posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator is mandated by the  very  terms  of
the Order dated 02.08.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 21518 of 2000.   Shri
Rao has contended that when supernumerary posts of Junior Helpers have  been
created and parity of pay with the  higher  post  has  been  granted  it  is
difficult to conceive why supernumerary  posts  of  Marine  Assistant  Radio
Operator were not created in order to fully comply with  the  Order  of  the
High Court.  It is also pointed out that it is evident from  the  provisions
of  the  relevant  Regulations  governing  the  service  conditions  of  the
respondents  i.e.  Oil  and  Natural  Gas  Corporation  Ltd.  i.e.  Modified
Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, that had the  respondents  been
absorbed  as  Marine  Assistant  Radio  Operators  they  would  have  earned
promotions under the Regulations which avenues stand  closed  due  to  their
absorption in the post of Junior Helper.  Shri Rao has also referred to  the
correspondence  exchanged  between  the  Corporation  and  the  Ministry  of
Petroleum and Natural Gas,  Government  of  India,  which  is  available  on
record, to show that there existed/exists a cadre of Marine Assistant  Radio
Operator and the strength of the cadre  depends  on  the  necessity  of  the
operations of the Corporation.  The cadre strength is flexible depending  on
the job requirement, it is urged.  Shri Rao, therefore, has  contended  that
the action taken by the appellants in purported compliance  of  the  Court’s
Order dated 02.08.2006 would still make them liable for contempt  which  can
be purged only by creation of posts of Marine Assistant Radio  Operator,  as
directed by the High Court.

15.   The power vested in the High Courts as well as this  Court  to  punish
for  contempt  is  a  special  and  rare  power  available  both  under  the
Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
It is  a  drastic
power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of  the  individual
charged with commission of contempt.
The very nature of the power  casts  a
sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with  the  greatest  of  care
and caution.
This is also necessary as, more often than  not,  adjudication
of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination  of  the  sweep,
meaning and effect  of  the  order  in  respect  of  which  disobedience  is
alleged.  
Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of  the
order which is alleged to have been flouted or  enter  into  questions  that
have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the  order  violation
of which is alleged.
Only such directions which are explicit in a  judgment
or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for  the
purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been  any  disobedience  or willful violation of the same.
Decided issues cannot be reopened;  nor  the plea of equities can be considered.  
Courts  must  also  ensure  that  while
considering a contempt plea the  power  available  to  the  Court  in  other
corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is  not  trenched  upon.   
No order or direction supplemental to what has been  already  expressed  should
be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the  domain  of  the
contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate  in  other  jurisdictions
vested in the Court, as noticed above.  
The above  principles  would  appear
to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited  at  the  bar,  namely,
Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another vs.  Tarak  Nath  Ganguly  and  Others[3],
V.M.Manohar Prasad vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another[4], Bihar Finance  Service
House  Construction  Cooperative  Society  Ltd.  vs.  Gautam   Goswami   and
Others[5]  and Union of India and Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV[6].

16.   Applying the above settled principles to the case  before  us,  it  is
clear that the direction of the High Court  for  creation  of  supernumerary
posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator cannot be countenanced.  
 Not  only
the Courts must act with utmost restraint before  compelling  the  executive
to create additional posts, the  impugned  direction  virtually  amounts  to
supplementing the directions contained in the order of the High Court  dated
02.8.2006.  
The alterative direction i.e. to grant parity of pay could  very
well have been occasioned by the stand taken by the Corporation with  regard
to the necessity of keeping in existence the cadre itself  in  view  of  the
operational needs of the Corporation.  
If despite the specific  stand  taken
by the Corporation in this regard the High Court was of the  view  that  the
respondents should be absorbed as Marine Assistant  Radio  Operator  nothing
prevented the High  Court  from  issuing  a  specific  direction  to  create
supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator.  The  same  was  not
done.  
If that be so, the direction to create  supernumerary  posts  at  the
stage of exercise of the contempt jurisdiction has to be  understood  to  be
an addition to the initial order passed in the Writ Petition.  
The  argument
that such a direction is implicit in the  order  dated  02.08.2006  is  self
defeating.  
Neither, is  such  a  course  of  action  open  to  balance  the
equities, i.e. not to foreclose the promotional avenues of the  petitioners,
as vehemently urged by Shri Rao.  The issue is one of jurisdiction  and  not
of justification.  
Whether the direction issued would be  justified  by  way
of review or in exercise of any other jurisdiction is an  aspect  that  does
not concern us in the present  case.  Of  relevance  is  the  fact  that  an
alternative direction had been issued by the High Court by its  order  dated
02.08.2006  and  the  appellants,  as  officers  of  the  Corporation,  have
complied with the same.  They cannot  be,  therefore,   understood  to  have
acted in willful disobedience of the said order of  the  Court.    
All  that
was required in terms of the second direction having been complied  with  by
the appellants, we are of the view that the order  dated  02.08.2006  passed
in W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 stands  duly  implemented.  
Consequently,  we  set
aside the Order dated 19.01.2012 passed in  Contempt  Petition  No.  161  of
2010, as well as the impugned order  dated  11.07.2012  passed  in  Contempt
Appeal No.2 of 2012 and allow the present appeal.


                                       ...…………………………CJI.
                                        [P. SATHASIVAM]



                                        .........………………………J.
                                        [RANJAN GOGOI]




                                                       …..........……………………J.
                                        [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 4, 2014.
-----------------------
[1]    (1997) 9 SCC 377
[2]    (2001) 7 SCC 1
[3]    (2002) 5 SCC 352
[4]    (2004) 13 SCC 610
[5]    (2008) 5 SCC 339
[6]    (2006) 1 SCC 613

-----------------------
18


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.