Dismissed

M/S Jethu Mal Mohan Lal and Anr. v. A.S. Guliani and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2009COCP/405/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging respondents violated a Supreme Court order directing allotment of plots. The High Court held it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate contempt against the Supreme Court's authority, dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Supreme Court directly.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file before the Supreme Court of India for initiating contempt proceedings.

M/S Jethu Mal Mohan Lal and Anr. Vs A.S. Guliani… — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.O.C.P. No. 405 of 2009

¶3

Date of Decision : May 06, 2009

¶4

M/s Jethu Mal Mohan Lal and another

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri A.S.Guliani and another

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶10

Present : Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶12

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act with the allegations that the respondents have violated the order dated April 30,1998 (Annexure P.2) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby the respondents were directed to allot plots to the petitioners and other similarly situated commission agents but instead of doing so, though the allotment of the shops have been made in favour of other persons yet no allotment has been made to the petitioners.

¶13

According to the petitioners, they along with other commission agents were running their business in the old market yard at

¶14

C.O.C.P. No. 405 of 2009 -2-

¶15

Mandi Guru Har Sahai. The State of Punjab decided to set up a new grain market at Mandi Guru Har Sahai and, as such the petitioners were entitled to allotment of plots/shops in the new grain market on preferential basis. When the State Government failed to accommodate the petitioners and other similarly situated commission agents, they filed CWP No. 7198 of 1995 titled “M/s Labh Ram & sons and others Versus State of Punjab and others”, which writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court on 2.2.1996 but the said writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners and others filed Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. On grant of special leave, the petition was converted into an appeal which was finally allowed on 30.4.1998 whereby the judgment passed by the High Court was set aside and the respondents were directed to give preference to the petitioners in the matter of allotment of buildings/plots. Even though the judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 1998 yet no action had been taken by the respondents in the allotment of plots/shops and giving preference to the petitioners. In the year 1999, the State Government framed the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules, 1999, whereby also it was expressly provided that the dealers, who were continuing their business in the old market yards, would be allotted the plots on price as mentioned in the said rules. These rules were later on amended vide notification dated 2.1.2008. In terms of the amended rules, an advertisement was issued so

¶16

C.O.C.P. No. 405 of 2009 -3-

¶17

as to invite applications from the licencees for allotment of plots in different markets. However, in the said advertisement, neither any reference was made to the order dated April 30, 1998 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India nor there was any mention about the criteria to be adopted for the purposes of allotment. Though the petitioners were not required to submit any application for allotment of the shops/plots as there was already a direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the respondents to allot the plots/shops to the petitioners and other similarly situated commission agents, yet, as an abundant caution, the petitioners also got prepared their applications before the last date and submitted them in the office of Market Committee, Guru Har Sahai on 23.1.2008. However, their applications were not accepted by the officials of the Market Committee without citing any reason. Apprehending that there might be a foul play by the authorities in making the allotment of plots, the petitioners and five other similarly situated dealers served a notice of demand of justice dated 11.2.2008 (Annexure P.4). On receipt of the same, the petitioners were called in the office of Market Committee, Guru Har Sahai on 10.3.2008 and asked to submit their application forms. Accordingly, both the petitioners submitted their applications dated 23.1.2008 in the office of the Market Committee, Guru Har Sahai on 10.3.2008. However, the petitioners were surprised to know that on 29.1.2009, the respondents had issued the letters of intent to most of the dealers, except the petitioners. According to the petitioners, by making the allotment of

¶18

C.O.C.P. No. 405 of 2009 -4-

¶19

plots to other dealers vide allotment letters dated 29.1.2009, the respondents ignored the claims of the petitioners and, as such, willfully and deliberately violated the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and thereby inviting initiation of contempt proceedings against them.

¶20

As is clear from the contents of the petition as well as from the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents ought to be proceeded against under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for violating the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on April 30, 1998 whereby they were directed to provide preference to the petitioners in the matter of allotment of building/shop/ plot. However, this Court has no jurisdiction, either under the Contempt of Courts Act or under the Constitution of India to deal with the alleged contempt of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This issue was settled by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Advocate General Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. V. Ramana Rao, AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh 299, when it held the argument submitted on behalf of the alleged contemner well founded that the High Court had no jurisdiction either under the Constitution or under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 to deal with alleged contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India . Para 4 of the said judgment reads as under :-

¶21

“The main contention advanced before us by the respondent’s learned counsel with reference to

¶22

C.O.C.P. No. 405 of 2009

¶23

-5-

¶24

this passage is that this Court has no jurisdiction to go into it for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it constitutes contempt of Court. The argument is that this Court has no jurisdiction either under the Constitution or under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 to deal with alleged contempt of the Supreme Court. We think this argument is well-founded. We should therefore refrain from dealing with the said passage in these proceedings and eschew it altogether from our minds in considering the merits of this contempt case. In other words, we propose to devote our attention only to the other passages which are alleged to constitute contempt of the High Court, the Subordinate Courts and the Election Tribunal. What the respondent has said regarding the Supreme Court can thus be kept completely out of our minds in the present proceedings”

¶25

In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another v. State of

¶26

Gujarat and others, 2006(2) RCR (Crl.) 448, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that though no law had been enacted by the Parliament by virtue of Entry 77 List I to the Constitution of India relating to the powers of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to contempt of itself yet the nature of punishment prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 might act as a guide for the Hon’ble Supreme Court but extent of punishment as prescribed under that Act could apply only to the High Courts because the 1971 Act ipso facto did

¶27

C.O.C.P. No. 405 of 2009 -6-

¶28

not deal with the contempt jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, except that Section 15 of the Act prescribed procedural mode for taking cognizance of criminal contempt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also. The observations made in this regard are as under :-

¶29

“Parliament by virtue of Entry 77 List I is competent to enact a law relating to the powers of the Supreme Court with regard to contempt of itself and such a law may prescribe the nature of punishment which may be imposed on a contemner by virtue of the provisions of Article 129 read with Article 142(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950. Since, no such law has been enacted by Parliament, the nature of punishment prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 may act as a guide for the Supreme Court but the extent of punishment as prescribed under that Act can apply only to the High Courts, because the 1971 Act ipso facto does not deal with the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, except that Section 15 of the Act prescribes procedural mode for taking cognizance of criminal contempt by the Supreme Court also. Section 15, however, is not a substantive provision conferring contempt jurisdiction. The judgment in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice and Judges of the PEPSU High Court, (AIR 1954 SC 186) as regards the extent of “maximum punishment” which can be imposed upon a contemner must, therefore, be construed as

¶30

C.O.C.P. No. 405 of 2009

¶31

-7-

¶32

dealing with the powers of the High Courts only and not of this Court in that behalf. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., (AIR 1998 SC 1895), this Court expressed no final opinion on that question since that issue, strictly speaking, did not arise for decision in that case. The question regarding the restriction or limitation on the extent of punishment, which this Court may award while exercising its contempt jurisdiction, it was observed, may be decided in a proper case, when so raised. We may note that a three Judge Bench in Suo Motu Contempt Petition 301 of 2003 by judgment dated 19.12.2003 in re: Sri Pravakar Behera (2003 (10) SCALE 1726) imposed cost of Rs.50,000/-.”

¶33

To be fair to learned counsel for the petitioners, the judgment referred by him in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh v.State of Jharkhand and others, 2004 Criminal Law Journal 3030, may be looked into. In this judgment, a practicing Advocate of Jharkhand High Court had filed an application under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 against the State of Jharkhand, the police officials and one District President of a political party which had allegedly called for the Bandh and had enforced it, thus, committing contempt of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar , (1998) 1 SCC 201 . The argument is that the respondents in the aforementioned judgment had violated the

¶34

C.O.C.P. No. 405 of 2009 -8-

¶35

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was entertained and decided by the Jharkhand High Court.

¶36

I have perused the above cited judgment. With due respect, the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court was not directly called upon to consider the aspect as to whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the petition filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents therein for violating the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only issue discussed in the entire judgment related to the respondents therein violating a particular decision of the Court. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the argument submitted on behalf of the petitioners that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition against the respondents for the act of the latter in violating the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India .

¶37

In view of the above, it is held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition filed by the petitioners for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for allegedly violating the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated April 30, 1998. It is, however, made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion as to whether the alleged violation by the respondents of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶38

C.O.C.P. No. 405 of 2009 -9-

¶39

of India exposed them to be proceeded against under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 or not.

¶40

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for having not complied with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on April 30,1998. This prayer is accepted. The petition is dismissed as having been withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in accordance with law for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.

¶41

( T.P.S. MANN ) May 06, 2009 JUDGE satish

¶42

Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO

M/S Jethu Mal Mohan Lal and Anr. v. A.S. Guliani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jethu Mal Mohan Lal and Anr. v. A.S. Guliani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Vs Navdeep Singh and Ors.

Inderpal Singh Vs S.P.S.Sohan, Dir. Health & Anr.

Darshan Ram @ Darshan Singh Vs Neelima Shangla

Raj Kumar Vs N P S Aulakh and Anr.

Kuldip Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Gopal Chadha and Ors.

Gurnam Singh Vs Rajiv Kumar Batra and Anr.