N Civil Miscellaneous Peti tion No 1103 of 1989
IN Special Leave Petition No 5597 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 2487 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in CR No 1095 of 1987
AK Sanghi for the Petitioner
CM Ashri and SM Ashri for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This application is by Kalu Ram and another who were the respondents in special leave petition No 559787
The petitioner in the special leave petition was the firm namely Ganpat Ram Rajkumar
It appears that the applicants had filed proceedings for evic tion against the firm in respect of the property in Narnaul in the State of Haryana under section 133c of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent  Eviction Act 1973
An order of eviction was passed against the said firm
Ultimately the High Court upheld the said order of eviction
The said firm came in special leave petition to this Court
This Court found that there was nothing to interfere with the order of eviction and on August 24 1987 passed the following order In view of the finding that the landlord has made out a case for eviction under Section 133c of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent  Eviction Act 1973 the Special Leave Peti tion is dismissed
The order of eviction shall not be executed for a period of six months on the petitioners filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from 226 today
The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition should also not prevent the petition er to the benefit of putting back into posses sion in the equivalent accommodation in the reconstructed building provided the Court lays down such condition while interpreting the provisions of the Act
We are informed that the question is pending consideration before this Court in some other cases ieWP Nos
13385 9921 24 of 1983 etc
 From the aforesaid it is apparent that the said firm wanted time to vacate the premises within six months from the date of the order and representation must have been made on behalf of the said firm that the usual undertaking  will be filed in this Court
Upon that this Court restrained eviction for a period of six months from the date of the said order
This Court further preserved the right of the said petitioner to the benefit of being put back in posses sion in the equivalent accommodation in the re constructed building provided the Court laid down such condition while interpreting the provisions of the Act
This Court recorded that the aforesaid question was pending consideration in this Court
However it appears that the said firm did not file any undertaking usual or otherwise
The usual undertaking to this Court means inter alia a statement that the party giving the undertaking is in possession of the premises and that it will further deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord or the respondent
As mentioned hereinbefore the petitioner did not file the undertaking though it had obtained time from this Court on that plea
Furthermore the petitioner did not vacate the premises in question
It appears that Sanjay Kumar and Lala Ram sons of Rajkumar and Ved Prakash who as sons of Ganpat Ram filed a suit in the court of Senior Sub Judge Narnaul for permanent injunction re straining the present applicants from ejecting Sanjay Kumar and Lala Ram
It may be mentioned that Ganpat Ram and Rajku mar are the partners of the petitioner firm Ms Ganpat Ram Rajkumar
The said firm and the partners thereof were bound in law to comply with the Order dated 24th August 1987
In the said suit Sanjay Kumar and Lala Ram obtained an order of temporary injunction dated 3rd November 1988
The learned Sr
Sub Judge Narnaul by an order in an application under Order 39 Rules 1  2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in civil suit No 12188 filed in the Court of Sr
Sub Judge Narnaul by Sanjay Kumar Lala Ram minor sons of Rajkumar and Ved Prakash son of Ganpat Ram as partners in the said firm made the order of injunction
227 The said suit was instituted against Kalu Ram and Puran Chand sons of Roshan Lal and also against Ganpat Ram
In the order passed on the 12th February 1988 in the said suit the learned Senior Sub Judge Narnaul had stated that the present plaintiffs had claimed right of tenancy to the premises in question independently and as such the decree of eviction passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition No 5597 would not bind the plaintiffs therein
He therefore issued an injunction restraining the parties who were Kalu Ram Puran Chand and Ganpat Ram partners of the petitioner firm
As mentioned hereinbefore both Sanjay Kumar and Lala Ram are sons of Rajkumar and Ved prakash respectively who is a partner of the firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar
Rajkumar was a partner Ganpat Ram was a partner and their sons and grandsons were claiming in the suit in Narnaul
On the date of the order of this Court dated 21st August 1987 in the said Special Leave Petition the peti tioner therein had obtained time on the implied assurance and representation that they were in possession of the premises in question and were capable of delivering the vacant possession to the applicants herein The effect of the said order of this Court as we have set out hereinbefore is that the applicants would have vacant possession from the firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar
It is not clear from the order of the learned Sr
Sub Judge Narnaul dated 3rd November 1988 how since the order of this Court dated 24th August 1987 the plaintiffs in the suit in Narnaul Court could have in possession of the premises in question
Having regard to the relationship between the parties and having regard to the undertaking promised to be filed in this Court upon which time was obtained from this Court it appears to us that there is a clear non compliance of the order
The order stated that vacant possession was to be given
In the aforesaid view of the matter the question that requires consideration is how will this order of eviction passed by the High Court and confirmed by this Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition on the terms mentioned hereinbefore on 24th August 1987 is to be enforced or implemented In our opinion the said order must be imple mented and cannot be allowed to be defeated by the dubious methods adopted by the partners of the said firm of Ganpat Ram Rajkumar
The whole conduct betrays a calculated attempt to defeat the order of this Court and to mislead this Court
If that is the position in our opinion parties cannot be allowed to do so and get away by misleading this Court
This application was made for contempt
It may or may not be appropriate to pass any order punishing the wrongdoers
But there is no doubt that the order of this Court dated 24th August 1987 is being sought to be defeated and frustrated
Sons and grandsons 228 of the partners or erstwhile partners of the firm cannot be allowed to frustrate the order of this Court
Mr Ashri learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents could not be held guilty of contempt of court
It was further submitted by him that no undertaking had in fact been given as such there is no question of breach of any undertaking by anybody
Mr Ashri was right
In fact no undertaking was given
It is also true that the parties who instituted suit in Narnaul and obtained the order of injunction dated 3rd November 1988 were not par ties before this Court when this Court passed the order on the 24th August 1987 nor are those parties successors in interest according to law of those who were bound by the order dated 24th August 1987 as such
As we look at it the order of this Court is an order of the High Court with a sanction of this Court and the applicants were entitled to have it executed
It has been interfered by the firm along with the plaintiffs in the said suit at Narnaul
Mr Ashri referred to certain observations of this Court in Babu Ram Gupta vs Sudhir Bhasin  Anr   wherein pending decision of a dispute between the parties referred to an arbitrator the High Court passed with the agreement of the parties a consent order appointing a receiver
The Court directed that the receiver should take charge of the property forthwith from the appellant therein and submit periodical reports to the Court regarding the running of the business
Without making an express direction to the appel lant that the properties in its possession should be handed over to the receiver the High Court directed the appellant not to interfere with the receiver in the running of the business and that the appellant should give the receiver all cooperation that the receiver might require
In the petition filed before the High Court in that case the respondent alleged that by failing to hand over possession of the property to the receiver in terms of the consent order the appellant had committed breach of the undertaking given to the court and hereby committed an offence punishable under section 2b of the hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The High Court held the appellant to be guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to undergo civil imprisonment
This Court held that the act of the appellant in not complying with the terms of the consent order did not amount to an offence under section 2b of the Act however improper or reprehensible his conduct might be
It was further held that when a person appearing before a court files an application or affidavit giving an undertaking to the court or when he clearly and expressly gives an oral undertaking which is incorporated by the court in its order and fails to honour that undertaking then a wilful breach of 229 the undertaking would amount to an offence punishable under the Act
An undertaking given by one of the parties should be carefully construed by the Court to find out the nature and extent of the undertaking given by the person concerned
It is not open to the court to assume an implied undertaking when there was none of the record this Court said
As mentioned hereinbefore the facts of that decision are significantly different from the facts in this case
The parties by no conduct overt or otherwise herein misled this Court
Indubitably in the instant case the decree of eviction was passed by the learned St Sub Judge Narnaul and upheld by the High Court of Punjab  Haryana
This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and granted time of six months on the plea that the petitioner firm would file an undertaking
All this could not have happened if the present plaintiffs in the Narnaul suit had not consented or allowed it to be passed or stood by
It is difficult to accept the position that they did not know
In the facts of this case we are of the opinion that they deliberately did not object to this Court passing the order and thereby allowed the firm to mislead this Court
They are therefore bound to see that the order of this Court is complied with
Though contempt is a serious matter and it interferes with the right of those who are found guilty of contempt no court should allow any party to mislead the court and thereby frustrate its order
In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that though perhaps the petitioner firm could not be found guilty of violating any undertaking as there was none in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court should ensure compliance with its order dated 24th August 1987 and see that vacant and peaceful posses sion is given to the applicant in the interest of justice
Mr Sanghi learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to an order of this Court in Thackar Harirarn Motirarn vs Balkrishan Chatrathu Thacker  Ors 1988 3 JT SC 18
That decision was however on the question of enter taining a Special Leave Petition or not
Special leave was not entertained in that case because the petitioner therein had obtained time from the High Court in respect of decree of eviction
In this case also the Special Leave Petition was dismissed but out of consideration for the difficulties of the petitioner firm in the said petition this Court was induced to grant some time on certain considerations
It appears that this Court was mislead
It further appears that the respondents all of them were guilty of acts which led to the situation and thereby frustrate the order of this Court
Another point was taken about limitation of this appli cation under section 20 of the Act
section 20 states that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after 230 the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed
In this case the present application was filed on or about 3rd November 1988 as appears from the affidavit in support of the application
The contempt considered inter alia of the act of not giving the possession by force of the order of the learned Sr
Sub Judge Narnaul dated 12th February 1988
Therefore the application was well within the period of one year
Failure to give possession if it amounts to a contempt in a situation of this nature is a continuing wrong
There was no scope for application of s 20 of the Act
In the aforesaid view of the matter we direct the learned St Sub Judge Narnaul Haryana to cause deliver up the vacant possession of the shop situated at Sabji Mandi Narnanl
Distt
Mohindergarb Haryana if necessary with the help of police forthwith
The learned Sr Sub Judge Narnaul is also directed to report compliance immediately
Save as aforesaid there will be no order on this applica tion but we direct that the respondents namely firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar Ganpat Ram Rajkumar Sanjay Kumar lala Ram and Ved Prakash should pay and bear the costs of this application to the applicant which is quantified and as sessed at Rs2500 Rupees two thousand five hundred only
Save as aforesaid there will be no further orders on this application
This order will not prevent or prejudice the applicants from taking any step for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit as they are entitled to in accordance with law
Y Lal Petition dis posed of


Summary:
For the spread of Hindi in North Eastern part of India an institution named Asom Hindi Prachar Samiti was formed on 31138 at Gauhati
In 1948 this Samiti was renamed as Assam Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti
The Petitioner No 1 herein is a registered body which claims to have a membership of about 22000 persons scattered all over the North Eastern part of India
This Samity has a sole constitution known as Bidhan which is also a duly registered body
The Samiti holds different examinations in Hindi twice a year publishes text books in Hindi for Primary Schools High Schools Higher Secondary Schools and Colleges upto the degree standard
Certificates issued by the Samity are recognised by the Government of India the Government of Assam and various other organisations
The Samiti also imparts training and teaching in Hindi through a number of Vidyalayas and Prama nita Pracharaks
The assets and properties of the Samiti at the time of filing this Petition are stated to be worth Rs 1244200000
According to the Bidhart the management and administra tion of the Samiti is run by elected bodies namely Byabas thapika Sabha and Karyapalika each having 5 years term from the date of holding of its first meeting
The Karyapalika consisted of 17 members
The Chief Minister of Assam was the Ex officio Adhyaksa of the Samiti but at the time of holding of the first meeting the State of Assam was under Presi dent s rule and consequently the office of Adhyaksha re mained vacant
Petitioner No 2 was unanimously elected Mantri
Petitioner No 2 and other office bearers of the Karyapalika held the first meeting on 1981982 and the Karyapalika was running and managing the day 161 to day affairs of the Samiti efficiently and diligently
The Samiti in its meeting held on 17783 passed a resolution amending the Bidhan deleting the provision that the Chief Minister of Assam shall be the ex officio Adhyak sha of the Samiti
This resolution was adopted in full compliance of Section 30 of the Bidhan and all members present in the meeting except one supported the resolution
After the passing of this amendment the Respondent No 4 as alleged by the petitioners passed an order dated 7784 on political considerations purportedly to act as the Ex offi cio Adhyaksha of the Samiti declared a state of emergency in the Samiti in exercise of the powers conferred under section 16Gha of the Bidhan dissolved the existing Karyapalika and constituted an ad hoc body with himself as Chairman and five others as members to manage the affairs of the Samiti and asked the Petitioners to hand over the charge of the Samiti to this Ad hoc committee
Thereupon the petitioners filed a suit for a declaration that the order dated 7784 passed by Respondent No 4 was void illegal without juris diction and unenforceable against the petitioner society
The Petitioners also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order and also moved an application for issuance of a temporary injunction upon which a show cause notice was issued to the defendants who filed their objections
While the matter was pending consideration of the question of issuing of a tempo rary injunction the Governor of Assam purporting to act under clause I of Article 230 of the Constitution of India promulgated an ordinance called the Asom Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti taking over of management and control Ordinance 1984
In due course the Ordinance was replaced by an Act passed by the Assam Legislative Assembly
Under the Ordinance and the Act virtually the Samity which was a public body was substituted by a Board appointed by the Government and all the functions properties and affairs of the Samiti were taken over by the Board
It is this action taken under the Ordinance and ultimately the Act which is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition
It is contended that although the Act as its title discloses was a temporary measure was continued at perpetuity and the Samiti is being run by nominated members and the rights of the members of the Samiti under Article 19 of the Constitu tion of India have not only been restricted but taken away
Even during the hearing it was indicated that the Government of Assam has no intention to end the temporary arrangement of the Samiti and by this process the State Government intends to deprive the members of the society their rights under Article 191C for all times to 162 come
In the Act there is no provision providing for resto ration of the elected bodies which shows that the use of phrase temporary  was just an eye wash
Accepting the contentions of the Petitioners this Court while allowing the Writ Petition
HELD As the Act of 1984 and the Board nominated or appointed under Section 3 of the Act is controlling the affairs of the Society it is not necessary to go into the orders passed by the Chief Minister invoking the emergency powers although the facts alleged clearly go to show that except that the Constitution Bidhan was amended and the Chief Minister was dropped from the place which he used to enjoy before the amendment of the Bidhan there was nothing serious justifying all these actions starting from invoking the emergency provisions till enacting the present Act
171G H 172A It is also apparent that since 1984 when this Act was passed and a notification appointing a Board was issued the Government has not chosen to take any steps to restore the Society back to its elected authorities and office bearers and nor does it intend to do so even now
Thus this Court is left with no option but to decide and decide upholding the Constitution and the right of association conferred under Article 191C of the Constitution
175D E The Complete Control has been taken away from the Peti tioner Society and is given to Board nominated by the Gov ernment
The Board is not as an interim measure
But will continue to control and manage the affairs of the society
This amounts to taking away the fundamental right of the Petitioner Society to form an Association guaranteed under Article 191C of the Constitution of India
170E The Notification under the Act enacted by the Assam Legislature is set aside holding that the Act itself is ultra vires of the Constitution
The Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act by which a Board was nominated to replace the Karyapalika and Byabasthapika Sabha is also quashed
175E Damyanti Narang vs The Union of India and others  referred to