Sri Chanrapal v. Sri P. Prakash Bhatnagar — 1967 DIGILAW 413 (ALL)

JUDGMENT J.N. Takru, J. -Sri Chandrapai has filed this petition praying that this Court might be pleased to punish the respondents for committing contempt of this Court. 2. The undisputed facts on which this petition is based, stated briefly, are these : The petitioner was a stage-carriage-permit-holder on the Bulandshahr Jahangirabad-Ahar route while the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 53, who were also stage-carriage permit-holders, had licences to operate on the Bulandshahr-Anupshahr-Dibai-Ramghat-Narora, or the Bulandshahr-Sahpur-Dibai-Ramghat routes. In 1965, the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 53 made applications to the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut for the inclusion of the petitioner's route in their permits. These applications were opposed by the petitioner and the other operators of the petitioner's route. The applications as also the objections came up for the consideration of the Regional Transport Authority Meerut at its meeting on the 21st of March, 1966, and on the same day the said authority rejected the objections of the petitioner etc., and by its resolution order of date allowed the applications of the respondents concerned. The petitioner there upon filed writ petition No, 1154 of 1966 in this Court challenging the legality of the said resolution/order. T he writ petition was admitted on the 29th of March, 1966, by Dwivedi and Khare JJ. and an ad interim stay order was passed by them the same day in the following terms : "Until further orders we stay the operation of the order of the Regional Transport Authority Meerut dated March 21, 1966 extending the routes of the Respondents 4 to 57." The stay order was served on the Regional Transport Officer on the 1st of April, 1966, and on the same day he issued letters to the President and the General Secretary of the Bulandshahr-Anupshahr-Narora-Motor Operators Union, Anupshahr, respondents Nos. 1 and 24 respectively to this petition, informing them about the aforesaid stay order and directing them to comply with it. 3. The case for the petitioner is that despite the respondents Nos. 1 and 24 respectively to this petition, informing them about the aforesaid stay order and directing them to comply with it. 3. The case for the petitioner is that despite the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to 53 having come to know of the afore said stay order on the 1st April 1966, they did not refrain from plying their vehicles on the petitioner's route, with the result that on the 4th April 1966 the President of the Union concerned with the petitioner's route, sent telegrams to the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr and the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut informing them about the plying by the operators of the Bulandshahr-Anupshahr-Narora-Motor Operators' Union of their vehicles via Jahangirabad in contravention of this Court's order dated the 29th of March, 1966, and praying for appropriate action in order to avoid breach of peace. On receipt of this telegram the District Magistrate sent a letter to the Station Officer, Jahangirabad on the 8th of April, 1966, directing him to see that this Court's order was enforced ; and, whether a result of that order or otherwise, the respondents stopped plying their vehicles on the petitioner's route from the same day. Thereafter on the 28ih of April, 1966 two operators whose permits had also been extended so as to include the petitioners route but whose permits for those new routes had not been endorsed by the time of the passing of this Court's order on the 29th March, 1966, moved an application in this Court praying for the vacation of the said stay order. This application came up for hearing before Dwivedi J. who, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, modified the said stay order on the 18th March, 1966 to this extent that he held that it did not operate against operators. 4. The petitioner's case further is that on the June 2, 1966, which was the last working day for the Civil Courts before they closed for the summer vacation, the respondent no. 1 filed a representative suit on behalf of himself and the respondents nos. 3 to 53 against the District Magistrate and some others in the Court of Sri S. K. Misra, City Munsif, Meerut, the respondent no. 54, praying for an injunction to restrain the District Magistrate from enforcing I his order dated the 8th April, 1966. 1 filed a representative suit on behalf of himself and the respondents nos. 3 to 53 against the District Magistrate and some others in the Court of Sri S. K. Misra, City Munsif, Meerut, the respondent no. 54, praying for an injunction to restrain the District Magistrate from enforcing I his order dated the 8th April, 1966. Along with the plaint an application I for a temporary injunction was also filed. The City Munsif allowed the I application and passed an ad interim order restraining the District Magistrate, Meerut, from enforcing his order dated the 8th April, 1966 and from interfering with the plying of the plaintiff's vehicles, with the result that the respondents nos. 1 and 3 to 53 again started plying their vehicles on the petitioner's route. The ad interim order was, however vacated by the City Munsif, Meerut (Sri O. P. Garg) on the 20th of July, 1966 on the application of an operator of the petitioner's route who had applied for and was allowed to be impleaded as a defendant in the II suit referred to above. Thereafter the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 to 53 once again ceased plying their vehicles on the petitioner's route. According to the petitioner the respondents wilfully flouted the order of this Court dated the 29th of March, 1966 and the 18th of May, 1966 and thus committed contempt of this Court. 5. The respondents contested the petition and filed three counter-affidavits. One counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents nos. 17 to 19, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 29 and 31 to 35, while the other two counter affidavits were filed by respondents nos. 1 to 3,5, to 7, 9 to 16, 20,21, 24, 25,28,30 and 36 to 53, and by the respondent no. 54 respectively. Briefly stated the decree of the respondents nos. 17 to 19, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 29 and 31 to 35, while the other two counter affidavits were filed by respondents nos. 1 to 3,5, to 7, 9 to 16, 20,21, 24, 25,28,30 and 36 to 53, and by the respondent no. 54 respectively. Briefly stated the decree of the respondents nos. 1 and 3 to 53 was that on the 24th March the resolution order, authorising the said respondents to ply their vehicles on the petitioner's route, was carried into effect, and the necessary endorsements were made in their permits further that as the order of this Court merely stayed the operation of the order of the Regional Transport Authority, dated the 21st March, 1966 i.e. forbade the said Authority from doing anything further on the basis of its order referred to above, and did not retrain those respondents from plying their vehicles on the petitioner's route, they could not be held to have flouted any order of this Court by doing so. As for the filing of the representative suit by the respondent no. 1 on the 2nd of June, 1966, their case was that they were continuously making representations to the District Magistrate to recall his order dated the 8th April, 1966, and it was only when on the 2nd June, 1966, they despaired of getting any relief from him that they filed the suit on the same day. The case of the respondent no. 54 was that he passed the injunction order, as in his opinion, this Court's order dated the 29th March, 1966 did not restrain the plaintiffs from plying their vehicles on the petitioner's route. The petitioner filed rejoinder, affidavits. Thus the short question involved in this position turns upon the construction which is to be placed upon this court's stay order dated the 29th March, 1966 ; and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the construction placed upon it by the learned counsel for the respondents is to be preferred for reasons which I shall proceed forthwith to record. 6. Now, the order in question has been quoted in an earlier part of this judgment and as such needs no repetition. 6. Now, the order in question has been quoted in an earlier part of this judgment and as such needs no repetition. That order, on its plain terms, only purported to stay the operation of the resolution/order of the Regional Transport Authority Meerut dated the 21st March 1966, whereby it extended the routes of the 54 respondents of that writ petition, i.e., the 52 respondents of this petition plus the two operators who came to this Court later on and got the stay order dated the 29th March, 1966 modified in their favour on the 18th May, 1966. The resolution/order of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut the operation of which was stayed-was to the effect that the permits of the applicants be varied so as to make them valid for the petitioner's route as well. If follows therefore that when this Court stayed the operation of that resolution/order all that it meant was that the Regional Transport Authority Meerut was not to do anything furtherance, or by way of implementation of that resolution /order. There is nothing in this Court's order that can be held to have expressly or impliedly said anything concerning the actions which the said authority might already have taken on the basis of its resolution/order. Had this Court also intended to restrain the respondents nos. 1 and 3 to 53 whom permits had already been endorsed from plying their vehicles on the petitioner's route, it would have issued a clear directive to them in that regard. The contention that the effect of the passing of the stay order was that the resolution order in question ceased to exist and the respondents nos. 1 and 3 to 53 could not ply their vehicles on the basis of a suspended order is fallacious. As held in Basseswari Chowdhurany v. Horro Sunder Masumdar, (1896-97) 1 CW No. 227. (1) and approved by the Supreme Court in Mulraj v. M.R. Maharaj, 1967 ALJ 598 (SC) (2) ; "An order of stay does not undo anything which has been done ; its utmost effect is to stop further action in the direction of execution but it would only have that effect when it reached the Court or person whose duty it was to obey it." 7. Besides it is to be remembered that the petitioner when he filed his written petition must have known that eight days had elapsed since the passing of the impugned resolution/order, and it was almost certain that some, if not all of the operators whose permits had been extended over his route would have utilised that week-long interval to get the necessary endorsement made in their permits. Hence if the petitioner with knowledge of this possibility did not obtain an injunction to restrain such of the permit-holders as had got their permits endorsed from plying their vehicles on his route, the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that either the prayer for injunction was not " made as its grant was considered unlikely, or, if it was made, it was impliedly disallowed. Be that as it may, the fact, as stated earlier, remains that if the Bench granting the stay order in question had intended to restrain the respondents nos. 1 and 3 to 53 from plying their vehicles on the petitioner's route it would have done so in clear terms, and it would not have left it) intention to be gathered by subtle reasoning. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the respondents including the City Munsif, Meerut, who granted the ad interim injunction on the 2nd of June, 1966 were wrong in their interpretation of the stay order passed by this Court. In any case it cannot be said that the said order restrained the respondents nos. 1 and 3 to 53 from operating their vehicles on the petitioner's route in such equivocal terms that their acting on that assumption could not have been bona fide but must have been in deliberate and wilful violation thereof rendering them liable to punishment for contempt. I am, therefore, satisfied that this petition has no fora against any of the respondents. It, accordingly fails and is dismissed ant the notices issued to the respondent are discharged. In addition the petitioner shall pay as costs Rs. 150/- to each of the three sets of the respondents with in two months.