Dismissed

Mahendra Mahadeodas Goswami and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2014CP/305/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging that the Selection Committee failed to consider Petitioners for Chairperson posts under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court found that Petitioners were interviewed, their results sealed, and appointments were contingent on final orders, negating wilful disobedience.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of as no willful breach of the order dated 06.09.2012 was found.

Mahendra Mahadeodas Goswami and Ors. Vs the State of… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

CP-305-13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 305 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4215 OF 2012

¶5

Mahendra Mahadeodas Goswami & Ors. .. Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Contemnors

¶6

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for Petitioners. Mr. Nitin Deshpande – AGP for Respondents / Contemnors.

¶7

CORAM : A. S. OKA & M. S. SONAK, JJ. 10TH FEBRUARY 2014

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP appearing for the Respondents.

¶10

2] The breach alleged in this Petition is of order dated 06.09.2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 7709 of 2012 and 4215 of 2012 filed by the Petitioners.

¶11

3] The issue involved is in relation to the appointments to the posts of Chairpersons of the District Consumer Redressal Forum. The challenge in the said two Writ Petitions is to the first proviso to sub section 2 of Section 10 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for

1/10

skc

CP-305-13

short “the said Act”). The contention raised in the Petition is that the first proviso added by virtue of amendment to the said Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order passed in the Writ Petition takes a note of the order passed by the Selection Committee dated 06.07.2012 by which the Petitioners in the Writ Petition were held as ineligible. On 06.09.2012, the Division Bench passed an interim order staying the order of the Selection Committee dated 06.07.2012 to the extent to which it treated the Petitioners in the Writ Petitions who had completed one term of the President of the District Forum as ineligible for consideration for appointment to second term.

¶16

4] It appears that the order of this Court was challenged by the Respondents by filing Special Leave Petition Nos. 2183-2184 of 2013. The Apex Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions by an order dated 11.01.2013. The order, reads thus :

¶17

“ Taken on board. Delay condoned. Issue notice.

¶18

As the interim relief granted by the High Court amounts to final relief and has been passed in a case where validity of the Act is under challenge. The High Court has directed to consider the candidature of the respondents who were Petitioners before the High

2/10

skc

CP-305-13

Court, by the selection committee. Their candidature may be considered by the committee but the result may not be declared. In the meanwhile, we request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the case.”

¶23

5] Further the order passed on 23.01.2013 on Civil Application No. 250 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 7709 of 2012 takes a note of two orders. The first order was passed in a Public Interest Litigation directing the State Government to fill in the posts of the District Consumer on or before 31.01.2013. Second order, of which note is taken is the aforesaid order of the Apex Court dated 11.01.2013 by which a direction was issued that the candidature of the Petitioners in this Petition be considered by the Selection Committee but the results shall not be declared.

¶24

6] Therefore, by an order dated 23.01.2013 it was directed that in view of the order passed in the Public Interest Litigation, the State Government will have to make appointments. However, this Court directed that if such appointments are made, the same will be subject to the further orders that may be passed in the Writ Petitions and while issuing orders of appointment, the Respondents shall ensure that the appointees are informed about the pendency of the relevant writ Petitions in the Court.

3/10

skc

CP-305-13

7] The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has invited our attention to the documents annexed to the Petition. He submitted that the Selection Committee met on 01.12.2012 and after interviewing the candidates other than the Petitioners, recommended 15 names for filling in the 15 posts which were advertised for the Chairpersons of the District Forum. His submission is that effect of the order dated 06.09.2010 passed by the Division Bench is that the order of the Selection Committee dated 06.07.2012 holding the Petitioners as ineligible was stayed and therefore, in view of the said order, on 01.12.2012 the cases of the present Petitioners ought to have been considered. His submission is that even the aforesaid order of the Apex Court shows that in view of the order dated 06.09.2012, the cases of the Petitioners who were Writ Petitioners ought to have been considered by the Selection Committee with a rider that their results could not have been declared. He invited our attention to the affidavits filed on record and in particular the affidavit dated 06.12.2013 filed by Mr. Satish Dnyaneshwar Pawar, In-charge Registrar (Legal), State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai. He pointed out that from the said affidavit, it appears that the Writ Petitioners were called for

4/10

skc

CP-305-13

interview by the Selection Committee on 15.01.2013. His submission is that in fact in the earlier meeting itself, recommendations were made by the Selection Committee for filling in all 15 posts which were advertised and therefore, it cannot be said that the cases of the Petitioners were considered in the selection process. He, therefore, submitted that there is a gross breach of interim order passed on 06.09.2012.

¶33

8] The submission of the learned AGP representing the Respondents is that the fact that the Petitioners were called for interview by the Selection Committee shows that their cases have been considered. He submitted that in paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 06.12.2013, the In-charge Registrar (Legal) has stated that the Selection Committee has kept the outcome of the selection process conducted on 15.01.2013 in a sealed envelope. He invited our attention to the orders of appointments issued in terms of the orders of this Court in which there is a specific condition that appointments were being made subject to further orders which may be passed in the Writ Petitions including the Writ Petition in which the order dated 06.09.2012 has been passed. Thus, his submission is that in substance, there is a compliance with the interim order passed by this Court.

5/10

skc

CP-305-13

9] We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The

¶38

question before us is whether a prima facie case is made out of wilful breach and disobedience of the order dated 06.09.2012.

¶39

10] It will be necessary to make reference to order dated 06.09.2012 and in particular paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof, which reads thus:

¶40

“8. Prima facie, we are of the view that the power to legislate and enact Rule 34 is relatable to Sub section (3) of Section 10 which permits the Government to enact subordinate legislation in respect of “other terms and conditions of service of the Members of the District Forum”, which will include reappointment, though it may not have included appointment. If any of the candidates are reappointed, such participation and selection shall be subject to the result of the petition.

¶41

9. The order of the Selection Committee dated 6/7/2012 is hereby stayed to the extent that it treats the Petitioners as Presidents of District Forum, who have completed one term as ineligible.”

¶42

11] Prima facie opinion expressed by the Division Bench of this Court is that the Rule 34 of Recruitment Rules of 2011 is relatable to sub Section (3) of Section 10 which permits the Government to enact subordinate legislation in respect of other terms and conditions of service of the members of the District Forum which will

6/10

skc

CP-305-13

include reappointment, though it may not have included appointment. Thereafter, the Division Bench observed that if any of the candidates are reappointed, such participation and selection shall be subject to the result of the Petition.

¶47

12] It is this direction, which was subjected to a challenge by the Respondents by filing a Special Leave Petition. We have already quoted the order passed in the Special Leave Petition passed by the Apex Court. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondents, on instructions, states that during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, there was no ad-interim or interim relief granted by the Apex Court.

¶48

13] It is true that though there was no specific order passed on 06.09.2012 directing consideration of cases of the Petitioners, but the order of the Selection Committee holding the Petitioners as disqualified was stayed. The result of the order of the Apex Court is that the Selection Committee was required to consider the candidature of the Petitioners, but the results were not to be declared.

¶49

14] As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the

7/10

skc

CP-305-13

Petitioners, Selection Committee had already made a recommendation of 15 candidates on 01.12.2012. Perhaps in deference to the order of the Apex Court that the Petitioners were invited for interview and it is not disputed that the Petitioners appeared for interview on 15.01.2013 before the Selection Committee. Thus, the grievance in substance is that along with other candidates who were interviewed earlier, the Petitioners were

¶54

not called for interview and were not considered for the appointment. As disclosed in the affidavits filed on record, the Petitioners were initially called for interview on 31.12.2012 which were postponed and rescheduled on 15.01.2013.

¶55

15] In paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 06.12.2013 of the InCharge Registrar Legal, there is a statement that the Selection Committee has kept the outcome of the selection process conducted on 15.01.2013 in a sealed envelope.

¶56

16] At this stage, we must make a note of the admitted fact that in a Public Interest Litigation, a Division Bench of this Court had issued a direction to the State Government to fill in the posts of Presidents of the District Consumer Forum on or before 31.01.2013. The order of the Apex Court dated 11.01.2013 permits the results of

8/10

skc

CP-305-13

the Petitioners to be withheld. On the other hand, there was a direction in the PIL to fill in all the posts on or before 31.01.2013 and that is why this Court's order dated 23.01.2013 in Civil Application No. 250 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 7709 of 2012 after referring to the order passed in the PIL as well as the order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Apex Court observed that though the appointments can be made, they will be subject to further orders which may be passed in the main writ petition and other pending Writ Petitions. Accordingly, the affidavit tendered today discloses that all the appointees have been specifically informed that their appointments will be subject to outcome of the pending Petitions.

¶61

17] Thus, the entire selection process undertaken by the concerned Respondents for filling in the posts is subject to final outcome of the Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioners. Even the Petitioners have been interviewed and their performance and marks have been kept in a sealed envelope.

¶62

18] The fact is that the Petitioners were called for interview and they were interviewed by the Selection Committee. Merely on the ground that they were not interviewed along with other candidates, it cannot be said that a deliberate breach of the order of this Court

9/10

skc

CP-305-13

dated 06.09.2012 was made. It is obvious that in the event Petitioners succeed in the Petition, the appointments which are already made being subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions, the Selection Committee will have to consider the performance of the Petitioners along with the performance of the candidates who have been already selected as the record of the viva-voce is available. Moreover, the entire process is subject to final outcome of the Writ Petitions.

¶67

19] Subject to what we have observed, we are unable to entertain

¶68

the Contempt petition in as much as we are not satisfied that there is a willful or deliberate breach of the order of this Court has been made.

¶69

20] Subject to what is stated above, the Contempt Petition is disposed of.

¶70

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶71

Chandka

¶72

10/10

Mahendra Mahadeodas Goswami and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Mahadeodas Goswami and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Shamrao Jinnappa Gaikwad Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri. Anil Appasaheb Desai Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Smt. Venubai Chaturbhuj Nagtilik Vs the State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Ashok Dhondiram Patil and Ors. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Office NO.12 (R), Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri Baburao Maruti Dalavi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Vrushali Vivek Patil Vs Vivek Vitthal Patil