Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 789 (MP)

Vinod Semval v. Laxman Singh Verma

2003-06-27

RAJENDRA MENON, UMA NATH SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Singh, J. -- This contempt appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the impugned order dated 22.3.2002 in the Contempt Petition (civil) No.6 of 2002 was heard on 27.3.2003 and the order was reserved. However, for the reasons given in the order dated 19.6.2003, parties were granted a further opportunity to file additional affidavits which they have done to get a picture of the background of the case and for the sake of convenience, the said order dated 19.6.2003 is reproduced as under: "Shri Vivek Tankha, learned Advocate General with Shri N.K. Mody, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri B.S. Dhakad, learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act impugns an order dated 22.3.2002 in the Contempt Petition (civil) No.6 of 2002, passed by learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Shri S.S. Jha, J.) recording conviction and sentence of the appellants for a wilful disobedience to an order of that Court dated 16.2.2001 in the Writ Petition No. 1305 of 2000. It appears that as per the said order in the Writ Petition the appellants had been directed to pay some retiral dues of one Laxman Singh (the respondent herein), an employee of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation with 15% interest in six instalments within a period of six months. It seems that the order was not complied with and, therefore, it gave rise to a cause of action in civil contempt, resulting in the impugned order of conviction and sentence. The lone submission which was sought to impress upon during the arguments has, in essence, been that the appellants who were not directly responsible for payment of the dues could not have been held guilty of a civil contempt. Besides that, the Court was informed that the appellants have tendered their unconditional apologies. In the appeal memo, the appellants inter-alia, have pleaded a ground of denial of an opportunity to file a reply to the Contempt Petition, apart from a plea of financial crunch, the Corporation is said to have been undergoing in the recent past. Nevertheless, in the appeal memo, Para (1) says as : "They are bound by the policy of State Government"; Ground No. (2) mentions as: "The present Managing Director Shri Vi nod Semval joined the office of the Corporation on transfer in July, 2001. Nevertheless, in the appeal memo, Para (1) says as : "They are bound by the policy of State Government"; Ground No. (2) mentions as: "The present Managing Director Shri Vi nod Semval joined the office of the Corporation on transfer in July, 2001. Since then hundreds of the Court's orders have been passed by various Courts for employees"; and Ground No. (7) contends as : "That the Managing Director was not arrayed as party in the Writ Petition, no order has been passed by Hon'ble Writ Court against the Managing Director, therefore, Shri Vinod Semval, managing Director, has been incorrectly arrayed as respondent No.1 in the Contempt Petition." Moreover, on scanning the appeal records, we do not find any averment of apology, much-less to say 'unconditional apology. Taking a note of the cavalier manner of dealing with this Contempt Appeal, we think it proper in the interest of justice to grant the parties a further but the last opportunity to file additional affidavits, regarding the premises indicated herein above in the preceding paragraph. The Registry is directed to send by both, fax and post, a copy of this order today itself to the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, for service through his office on the appellants. The matter to remain part heard. List with the records of Contempt Petition on 27.6.2003 forfinal disposal." Hence, in terms of the above order, the matter is listed today for final disposal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. At the outset Shri Mody tenders his unconditional apology and prays for deletion of the averments pointed out in para 3 of the above order dated 19.6.2003. The unconditional apology and the prayer are accepted and Shri Mody is permitted to carry out the correction during course of the day. That apart, Shri Mody submits that all the three appellants/contemners have tendered their individual and separate unconditional apologies. The said apologies being in identical terms on reproduction read as : "That the appellant is duty bound to comply with the orders/directions of this Hon 'ble Court and cannot even think to disobey the orders of this Hon'ble Court. That apart, Shri Mody submits that all the three appellants/contemners have tendered their individual and separate unconditional apologies. The said apologies being in identical terms on reproduction read as : "That the appellant is duty bound to comply with the orders/directions of this Hon 'ble Court and cannot even think to disobey the orders of this Hon'ble Court. However, the appellant tenders unconditional apology for the disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court.', Further from the impugned order dated 22.3.2002, it appears that the appellants/contemners had been a slack in contesting the case and had even failed to file a reply with material facts in time before the learned Single Judge, who was constrained to pass the impugned order of conviction and sentence of the appellants in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Now since the directions of the Court in the Writ Petition have been complied with; the relevant materials including apology have been placed on record; and the contemners/appellants have learnt a lesson for furture and beseechingly pray for indulgence of this Court, we are of the view that had these materials been placed before the learned Single Judge, perhaps he would also have decided the Contempt Petition in terms of an order, we propose to pass by allowing the Contempt Appeal. Hence, we hereby, set aside the impugned order dated 22.3.2002 in the Contempt Petition (civil) No.6 of 2002 and acquit the appellants of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the M.A. No. 226/02 succeeds.