Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 63 (BOM)

Dinesh Waghmare v. Gulshan Bahu Uddeshiya

2014-01-13

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, S.C.DHARMADHIKARI

body2014
JUDGMENT (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Admit. 2. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. With their consent, we dispose of this appeal finally. 3. The only submission made before us by the learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellants is that in this case the Court was not required to hold that the appellants are guilty of civil contempt. There was no deliberate or intentional act and mere delay in disposing of the matter, within the time frame stipulated by this Court, does not necessarily mean civil contempt. Something more is required to be established and proved and therefore held before such a finding is rendered. Further, in criticizing the conduct of the appellants, the Court was not required to use harsh language and observe that the attitude of the appellants was revengeful or in any way victimizing the original petitioner before the Court. 4. With the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and the directions in the main matter. We should be fair to the respondent's Advocate in that he has raised the issue of maintainability of this appeal, but in the light of the order that we propose to pass, we do not express any opinion on the question of maintainability of this appeal and this issue can be decided in an appropriate case. His submission is that there is no finding that the Appellants are guilty of civil contempt and therefore sentenced accordingly. So long as there is no order of this nature an appeal u/s 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 will not lie is the further argument. 5. For the present, we find that the appellants did not dispute that there was a delay in disposing of the matter pending before them and in terms of the directions and orders of this Court. The appellants did not seek any extension of time for disposing of the case either. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in criticizing the conduct of the appellants and holding them responsible for the delay and saddling them with a direction to pay costs quantified at Rs.25,000/We do not disturb that direction and that part of the order of the learned Single Judge. However, we find that the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the appellants are guilty of civil contempt. However, we find that the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the appellants are guilty of civil contempt. Equally he was not justified in observing that the conduct of the appellants was revengeful. For rendering both findings, there was no material before the learned Single Judge. It is well settled and by the definition of the term "Civil Contempt" as appearing in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, that it means, "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court." Therefore, unless the act comes within the definition of the term "Civil Contempt", then, alone the Court can proceed in accordance with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and not otherwise. It has been held repeatedly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere disobedience of an order passed or a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court will not be civil contempt. The Court would be required to render a finding as to whether the disobedience was wilful. In the circumstances, in which the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge, there was no such material. 6. Secondly, unless and until there is a material to hold that the conduct of a party is blameworthy and has in some way or the other, interfered with the course of justice, use of harsh and strong language should be avoided. In the circumstances, we find no material before the learned Single Judge to criticize the conduct of the appellants in the terms used and to be found in the impugned order. The Appellants attitude and conduct could not be, by any manner, said to be revengeful. 7. With the above clarification and maintaining the direction to pay costs and by holding the appellants responsible for the delay in disposal of the matter, we allow this Contempt Appeal. It is disposed of accordingly. Costs to be paid to the original petitioner/respondent No.1. 8. 7. With the above clarification and maintaining the direction to pay costs and by holding the appellants responsible for the delay in disposal of the matter, we allow this Contempt Appeal. It is disposed of accordingly. Costs to be paid to the original petitioner/respondent No.1. 8. We would expect the State not to force the Court into passing drastic orders but be receptive and responsive to the directions of the Court and deal with the matters within the time frame stipulated in this Court's order and in the event of any difficulties, the matter should be placed before the Court again, seeking extension or further time period to dispose of the case. The Application be accompanied by an affidavit of the officer concerned. We would only remind the parties before us and particularly the appellants about the following observations made in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Subhash Singh, reported in AIR 1997, SC 1390 in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5, which reads thus : “4. The constitutional Courts exercise their power of judicial review with constraint to ensure that the authorities on whom the power is entrusted under the rule of law or confide, is discharged truly, objectively, expeditiously for the purpose for which substantive acts/results are intended. The petitioner being a member of the permanent executive, is enjoined to comply with the orders of the Court passed in exercise of the judicial review. On an earlier occasion, while disposing of the writ petition, the High Court had directed the respondent to consider the case of the writ petitioner and to dispose it of with reasoned order within two months. Obviously, the high Court expected that the authorities would discharge their duties expeditiously as enjoined under the rules and as per the directions. Since they did not discharge the duty, necessarily, they were required to give explanation to the Court as to the circumstances in which they could not comply with the direction issued by the Court or if there was any unavoidable delay, they should have sought further time for compliance. Unfortunately, neither of the steps have been taken by the officer in that regard. Therefore, the High Court was constrained to impose the costs personally against him for noncompliance of the order. 5. Unfortunately, neither of the steps have been taken by the officer in that regard. Therefore, the High Court was constrained to impose the costs personally against him for noncompliance of the order. 5. It is true and we are alive to the fact that when the officer is to take steps as per the decision, some delay may occasion and generally the Courts would be reluctant to impose costs personally against the officers. But the officers are required to go to the Court, give the appropriate explanation and satisfy the Court that they were prevented by circumstances for non-compliance within the time specified by the Court. It is equally salutary to note that if the High Court feels it necessary to impose costs personally against the officers, the Court is required to enquire after giving notice and reasonable opportunity to the officer who could not be impleaded earlier or was not on record, to explain the reasons for noncompliance of the order or decision taken to file the proceedings. Take for instance, delay in filing of an appeal or revision. It is known fact that in transaction of the Government business, none would own personal responsibility and decisions are leisurely taken at various levels. It is not uncommon that delay would be deliberately caused to confer advantage to the opposite litigant; more so when stakes involved are high or persons are well connected/influential or due to obvious considerations. The Courts, therefore, do not adopt strict standard of proof of every day's delay. The imposition of costa on officers for filing appeals causes public injustice and gives the manipulators an opportunity to compound the camouflage. Secondly, the imposition of costs personally against the officers will be counter productive and officers would desist to pursue genuine cases of public benefit or importance or of far reaching effect on public administration or exchequer deflecting course of justice. The Court before imposing costs personally against the officers should be circumspect and keep at the back of its mind the facts and circumstances in each case. Otherwise, public justice will suffer irremediably. Unfortunately, in this case the delay in compliance is of one year and five months and the officer has not explained. The High Court was constrained to impose personal costs against the officer. Under the circumstances, we do not think that it is a fit case for interference.” 9. Otherwise, public justice will suffer irremediably. Unfortunately, in this case the delay in compliance is of one year and five months and the officer has not explained. The High Court was constrained to impose personal costs against the officer. Under the circumstances, we do not think that it is a fit case for interference.” 9. Prior to the above, the Supreme Court in the case of Bigyan Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1025 , observed as under: “We would part with the matter by recording our serious concern and disapproval of the growing conduct of parties and public officers in particular of ignoring the directions of the Courts and the multiplying instances of confrontation. The Court, including the apex one, is a part of the State and is a built in mechanism of the Constitution to administer justice in accordance with law. For discharging that duty, the Court has got to adopt an attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation brought before it for adjudication. The manner of functioning of the Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be dispassionate, objective and analytical. The judges who preside over these courts do not act with a sense of superiority; nor do they look down upon others in the community. In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose for which the courts are established is duly served, it is necessary that everyone within the framework of the Rule of Law must accept the system, render due obedience to orders made and in the event of failure of compliance, the rod of justice must descend down to punish. We hope and trust that everyone within the system realises this situation and does not unnecessarily get into a confrontation.”