A contempt action being in the nature of quasi
criminal proceeding the degree of satisfaction that must be
reached by the Court to hold a person guilty of commission of
contempt would be akin to what is required to prove a
criminal charge, namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The order of the Court in respect of which violation is alleged
must, therefore, be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and
defiance thereof must be apparent on the very face of the
action with which a contemnor is charged. An interpretation
of the terms of Court’s order in respect of which disobedience
is alleged would not be appropriate while dealing with a
charge of contempt. Such a charge cannot be brought home
by unravelling the true meaning of the Court’s order by a
subsequent order when there is an apparent ambiguity, lack
of clarity or dichotomy in the initial order.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9476 OF 2013
(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.22500 of 2012)
T.C. GUPTA
... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS.
Citation;
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By its order dated 23.07.2012 the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana has found the appellant guilty of commission of
contempt in respect of an order dated 18.08.2011 passed in
Civil Misc. No.10994 of 2011 arising out of Writ Petition (C)
No.11684 of 2011.
Consequently, the appellant was
summoned to appear before the High Court on 30.07.2012
for
hearing
before
pronouncement
of
order
on
the
punishment to be imposed. Aggrieved, the present appeal
has been filed.
3.
The facts that will be necessary to be noticed are as
follows:
The respondent No.1 herein, as the writ petitioner,
instituted a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court
(C.W.P. No.11684 of 2011) raising a grievance with regard to
the Final Development Plan 2025-AD for Gurgaon-Manesar
Urban
Complex
published
vide
Notification
(NCR)/FDP(G)/2011/1386 dated 24.05.2011.
No.
CCP
Specifically, it
was contended that Sectors 63-A and Sector 67-A have been
carved out in the Development Plan contrary to the Zoning
Regulations which are required to be followed.
The Final
Development Plan, it may be noticed, is prepared under the
Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of
Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act of 1963).
4.
on
Notice on the writ petition was issued by the High Court
8.07.2011.
Thereafter,
on
11.08.2011
Civil
Misc.
Application No.10994 of 2011 was filed before the High Court
for stay of the implementation of the Final Development Plan
“in
view
of
contemplated
grant
colonizers/developers/societies.”
following
order
was
passed
of
On
by
the
licence
to the
18.08.2011 the
High
Court
in
C.M.No.10994 of 2011:
“Notice for the date fixed.
Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. A.G., Haryana, present in
Court, accepts notice.
In the meanwhile, there will be status quo as to
allotment as on today.”
5.
Though an application to vacate the aforesaid interim
order was filed by the Respondents in the writ petition the
interim order was neither vacated nor modified by the High
Court and continued to remain in force.
While the matter
was so situated the appellant who then serving as the
Director General, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, had
granted a licence dated 28.12.2011 for setting up of a
Residential Plotted Colony on land measuring 100.262 acres
falling in Sector 63-A of the Gurgaon-Manesar.
The
aforesaid grant of licence [under the Haryana Development
and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975] (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Haryana Act of 1975’) by the appellant had
led to the institution of the contempt proceeding in question
which was registered as C.O.C.P. No.120 of 2012. The said
action was initiated on the basis that the grant of the licence
dated 28.12.2011 by the appellant is in violation of the order
of the Court dated 18.08.2011.
6.
The appellant had filed his response in the contempt
proceeding contending that no allotment was made by him
or by any other authority so as to constitute violation of the
order of the High Court dated 18.08.2011. The appellant, in
his reply, further stated that in every residential sector, a
maximum of 20% of the net planned area was earmarked for
group housing and 3.5% for commercial purposes whereas
for plotted residential colonies there was no restriction
except the requirement of a minimum area of 100 acres. It
was also stated that while the applications for group housing
and commercial activities was to be accorded priority on the
basis of date of application the same was not so in respect of
applications for plotted colonies which are to be considered
and licences are to be granted on fulfilment of the conditions
prescribed.
It was further stated by the appellant that
though not specifically prohibited by the order dated
18.08.2011, out of sheer deference, no licence has been
granted
or
contemplated
for
group
housing
colony/commercial colony as such licences can be granted
upto a maximum limit of the net planned areas. Licences for
plotted colonies, according to the appellant, stood on a
different footing inasmuch as for grant of such licences no
ceiling limit exists. After offering the aforesaid explanations,
in the penultimate paragraph of the reply the appellant had
tendered his unqualified and unconditional apology in the
following terms:
‘It is humbly submitted that the answering
deponent has unfailing regard for this Hon’ble
Court and all others courts of India and cannot
think of disobeying any order passed by the
Hon’ble Law Court. It is an article of faith for them
to respect the orders passed by the Hon’ble
Courts. However, if this Hon’ble Court still comes to
the conclusion that the answering deponent has
committed any contempt of court, the deponent
tender unqualified and unconditional apology for
the same.’
7.
The High Court, on consideration of its interim order
dated 18.08.2011 and response of the appellant referred to
above, came
to the
conclusion that
its
order
dated
18.08.2011 has to be understood to have imposed a
comprehensive embargo on issuance of all kinds of licences
and, therefore, the grant of licence dated 28.12.2011, though
for a plotted housing colony, amounted to violation of the
order dated 18.08.2011.
Accordingly, the High Court held
the appellant guilty of commission of contempt and passed
orders for his personal appearance for hearing on the
quantum of punishment.
8.
We have heard Mr.Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned
Attorney General for India, appearing for the appellant,
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the
respondent No.3. None has appeared on behalf of the first
respondent i.e. writ contempt petitioner before the High
Court.
9.
It is the common ground of the learned counsels
appearing for the contesting parties that the interim order of
the High Court dated 18.08.2011 had only restrained the
concerned
authority
from
making
any
allotments.
Admittedly, no allotment(s) were made. There was no
specific
order
prohibiting
the
implementation
of
the
development plan, though such a relief was prayed for before
the High Court. It is urged that the appellant, in his reply,
had set out the manner in which he had understood the
order dated 18.08.2011, namely, that the said order had not
placed any kind of prohibition on grant of licences under the
Haryana Act of 1975. Yet, out of deference to the order of
High
Court,
no
licence
either
for
group
housing
or
commercial activities in either Sector 63-A or 67-A was
issued or granted and the entire of the earmarked land in
both these sectors for Group Housing and Commercial
purposes was kept vacant.
Only in respect of plotted
colonies for which there was no ceiling limit the licence dated
28.12.2011 was issued. It is further urged that in the light of
the specific order passed by the High Court it cannot be said
that the appellant or any other person or authority had
violated the same.
It is also pointed out by the learned
counsels that, in any view of the matter, the appellant had
tendered his unqualified and unconditional apology which, in
fitness of things, ought to have been accepted by the High
Court. Lastly, the learned Attorney General, by drawing the
Court’s attention to the counter affidavit filed before this
Court by the second respondent, has submitted that the writ
petition itself had been dismissed by the High Court on
30.10.2012 holding that the validity of the development plan
published by the Government in accordance with the
relevant provisions of the Statute is not open to challenge by
means of a Public Interest Litigation. It is also pointed out
that the aforesaid order of the High Court has attained
finality in law.
10. The terms of the order of the High Court dated
18.08.2011;
the
averments/statements
made
in
the
contempt petition and the reply thereto on behalf of the
appellant as well as the subsequent facts placed before us
have received our due and anxious consideration.
The
interim order of the High Court had directed status quo to be
maintained in respect of allotments.
Admittedly, no
allotments had been made by the appellant or any other
authority.
A contempt action being in the nature of quasi
criminal proceeding the degree of satisfaction that must be
reached by the Court to hold a person guilty of commission of
contempt would be akin to what is required to prove a
criminal charge, namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The order of the Court in respect of which violation is alleged
must, therefore, be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and
defiance thereof must be apparent on the very face of the
action with which a contemnor is charged. An interpretation
of the terms of Court’s order in respect of which disobedience
is alleged would not be appropriate while dealing with a
charge of contempt. Such a charge cannot be brought home
by unravelling the true meaning of the Court’s order by a
subsequent order when there is an apparent ambiguity, lack
of clarity or dichotomy in the initial order. In a situation like
the present where the High Court had directed maintenance
of status quo as to allotment when the interim prayer was to
stay the implementation of the final development plan “in
view
of
contemplated
grant
of
licence
to
the
colonizers/developers/Societies” it was not open for the High
Court to hold the contemnor guilty of commission of
contempt by understanding the order dated 18.08.2011 to
mean status quo or a restraint in respect of grant of licences
under the Haryana Act of 1975.
11. In an earlier part of the present order, we have noticed
the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the
appellant before the High Court in the event his explanations
were to be found unacceptable. The explanation to Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, makes it clear that
an apology tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected
merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional so long
it is made bona fide. In his reply, the appellant, after offering
his
explanations,
had
tendered
his
unconditional
and
unqualified apology in the event the explanations did not
commend for acceptance of the High Court. In the decision
rendered in O.P.Sharma and Ors. Vs. High Court of
Punjab and Haryana1, this Court has already held that in
view of the explanation to Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act an apology ought not to be rejected only on the
ground that it is qualified so long as it is made bona fide. In
the present case there is nothing on record to suggest that
the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the
appellant in his reply before the High Court was actuated by
reasons that are not bona fide.
12. It has also been noticed by us that the writ petition in
which the interim order dated 18.08.2011 came to be passed
has been finally terminated by an order dated 30.10.2012
dismissing the writ petition and also that the said order has
attained finality in law. This is another relevant circumstance
that cannot be ignored though we should not be understood
to be saying that all cases of dismissal of the writ petition, by
itself,
would
absolve
a
contemnor
of
the
charge
of
commission of contempt in respect of an interim order
passed while the writ petition had remained pending.
(2011) 6 SCC 86 [para 34 and 35]
13. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the
order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the High Court.
We
accordingly set aside the said order dated 23.07.2012 and
allow the appeal.
..............................CJI.
[P. SATHASIVAM]
.................................J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
New Delhi,
October 25, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment