Case: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. L.K. Tripathi & Others


Decision:
0[ds]27. In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether respondent nos.1 to 5 can be said to have willfully disobeyed order dated 30.9.2007. At the cost of repetition, we consider it necessary to point out that while issuing notice in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18879 of 2007, this Court restrained the political parties from proceeding with the call for bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu on 1.10.2007 pursuant to resolution dated 24.9.2007 or any other day. The language of the restraint order is unambiguous. The prohibitive injunction contained therein was explicitly directed against the political parties and not against respondent nos. 1 to 3. The Court did not direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to act in any particular manner or take certain specific steps to meet the challenge likely to be posed by implementation of the call given by Democratic Progressive Alliance. This was so because the Court could not have presumed that the restraint order passed by it will be disregarded or flouted by the political parties. Therefore, respondent nos.1 to 3 cannot, per se, be held guilty of disobeying or violating the Courts order dated 30th September, 2007 and punished for committing contempt of court as defined in Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act.28. No doubt, the petitioners have repeatedly asserted that the buses of State Transport Corporations and 45000 private buses remained off the road on 1.10.2007 causing serious inconvenience to the general public and loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.10 crores, but their assertion is partly belied by the counter affidavits of respondent nos.1 to 3, wherein all the officers have detailed the reasons for operation of less number of buses in the initial hours on 1.10.2007 and the fact that revenue collection of the day was to the tune of Rs.4.83 crores. In his affidavit, respondent no.1 has categorically averred that during the course of the day 2749 routes were made operational. The affidavits of the official respondents also reveal that despite instructions issued to various functionaries, normal transport services could not be made available on account of the support extended to resolution dated 24.9.2007 by the trade unions affiliated to the political parties and the fact that large number of employees had gone on leave thinking that the services may not operate in the wake of the call given by the political parties and three holidays. This has not been controverted by the petitioners. The photographs produced by petitionerAll India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam do show empty streets, but the same cannot be made basis for recording a finding of guilt against respondent nos. 1 to 3, more so because the petitioners have not produced any evidence to prima facie establish that the transport services did not at all operate in the State on 1.10.2007 and that too on account of any action or omission on the part of respondent nos. 1 to 3. This being the position, it is not possible to record a finding that respondent nos. 1 to 3 or for that reason respondent no.5 deliberately disobeyed or violated the direction given by this Court.29. The petitioners have also not placed on record any evidence to show that despite restraint order passed by the Court on 30.9.2007, the political parties constituting Democratic Progressive Alliance resorted to strike or bandh. They have not even disputed that after coming to know about the Courts order, respondent no.4 made a statement at 1.30 p.m. withdrawing resolution dated 24.9.2007 which contained a call for cessation of work on 1.10.2007. If, despite statement of respondent no.4, which was made known to the public, the shops and business establishments remained closed and the private transport operators did not consider it proper to operate their services on 1.10.2007, respondent nos.1 to 3 cannot be held to have deliberately disobeyed the Courts order.30. The argument of Shri S. Guru Krishna Kumar that respondent no.4 should be held guilty of contempt because the Government did not issue written instructions to the officers to take steps for maintaining the essential services and to ensure that public life is not disrupted on account of the call for bandh and the workers of his party coerced the people to close the commercial and business establishments is being mentioned only to be rejected. The bald statement contained in the contempt petitions that violence and coercion was resorted to by members of the party headed by respondent no.4 has remained unsubstantiated because except the newspaper reports no material has been produced before the Court giving the names and other relevant particulars of the persons who are said to have indulged in forced closure of shops and business establishments on 1.10.2007 and no other evidence has been produced to show that respondent no.4 had, directly or indirectly, encouraged the members of his party to enforce the call for cessation of work which has been prima facie treated by the Courts as call for bandh. Therefore, respondent no.4 cannot be accused of having engineered violation of the Courts order.31. Insofar as respondent no.6 is concerned, we find that the only material produced by the petitioner in Contempt Petition No. 262 of 2007 is in the form of zerox copies of newspapers and tape of the edited version of speech which is said to have been telecast on Jaya T.V. on 1.10.2007 and 2.10.2007. The petitioner in Contempt Petition No. 327 of 2007 has also produced zerox copies of some newspapers. In his first affidavit, respondent no.6 has claimed that the newspapers have reported something by putting in his mouth which he did not speak. In his second affidavit filed in the form of reply to the affidavits of S/Shri M. Ramasubramanian, S. Ravikumar and R. Thillai, respondent no.6 has alleged that what was telecast on Jaya T.V. was the doctored version of his speech. This being the position, the petitioners were duty bound to produce some primary evidence to prove the contents of the speech made by respondent no.6 scandalizing judiciary in general and this Courts order dated 30th September, 2007 in particular. The zerox copies of the newspapers in which the contents of speech made by respondent no.6 have been published cannot be relied upon because the petitioners have not filed affidavits of those who covered the meeting held by the political parties in front of Chepauk Guest House on 1.10.2007 and heard the speech made by respondent no.6. If such affidavits had been filed, respondent no.6 could have been called upon to explain his position. Likewise, the original tape containing telecast of the speech made by respondent no.6 has not been made available to the Court.The judgments on which reliance has been placed by Shri S. Guru Krishna Kumar do not have any direct bearing on this case. In A. Sanjeevi Naidus case, the Court interpreted the provisions of Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and held that when a civil servant takes a decision, he does not do it as a delegate of his Minister but on behalf of the Government, though it is always open to a Minister to call for any file in his office and pass order or issue directions to the officers in his Ministry regarding the disposal of Government business generally or as regards any specified case. In Azhar Ali Khans case, the Court held that compliance of orders or directions given by Court to Government or its instrumentalities cannot be avoided merely on ground of inability to comply with its own resolution passed in the face of those clear orders or directions. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpads case it was found that the Minister and Principal Secretary, Department of Forests, Government of Maharashtra have brazenly and willfully flouted the Courts directions and granted permission to certain sawmills to recommence their operations and, therefore, they were punished under the 1971 Act. In Mohd. Aslams case, this Court considered the question whether the State and its ministers can be proceeded against in contempt for failure to obey the judicial pronouncements. The facts of the case were that during the month of July, 1992, land measuring 2.77 acres situated in Ayodhya was acquired by the State Government under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for developing an amenity for pilgrims at Ayodhya. Writ Petition No.1000 of 1991 was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court questioning the acquisition proceedings. On 15.11.1991, the Court noted that the Chief Minister of the State has made statements in the meeting of the National Integration Council held on 2.11.1991 against the making of construction at the site and accordingly, resolution was passed by the National Integration Council and directed that no construction be made at the site. However, despite the Courts order, construction activities were allowed to be undertaken at the site by Sadhus. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that any coercive/preventive action in the matter of construction of the platform would have triggered an adverse reaction endangering the safety of disputed `Ram JanmaMasjid structure which was situated in immediate vicinity and for whose protection Government stood committed and, therefore, the respondent who was holding the office of the Chief Minister, cannot be held guilty of contempt.In the case before us fact situation is entirely different. As mentioned above, on coming to know of the restraint order passed by this Court, respondent no.4 made a statement for withdrawal of resolution dated 24.9.2007 vide which call was given by five political parties for cessation of work. It is also borne out from the affidavit of respondent no.1 that on 24.9.2007 itself the said respondent had issued instructions to all the officers to ensure that law and order and essential services are maintained and the general public is not inconvenienced due to the call given by political parties for cessation of work. On 30.9.2007, respondent nos.1 to 3 gave detailed instructions to all the officers to ensure that the public is not put to harassment, the government and private properties are not damaged, supplies of essential services like water, electricity, telecom, railways etc. are not disrupted, supply of milk etc. is maintained and business and other commercial establishments are provided protection. Efforts were also made to ensure that operation of transport services is not affected. Respondent no.5 had monitored operation undertaken by the departmental authorities for restoring normal operation by the State Transport Corporation. It is, thus, evident that respondent nos. 1 to 5 did not disobey the restraint order passed by this Court and respondent nos. 1 to 3 took all the steps necessary for preventing any disruption of public services and inconvenience to the general public. It is a different thing that in the wake of hunger strike by leaders of political parties, the business community did not consider it proper to open shops etc. Therefore, the ratio of Mohd. Aslams case and other precedents referred to in that judgment cannot be applied to this case for framing charges against respondent nos.1 to 5 on the premise that they have committed contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act.42. Insofar as respondent no.6 is concerned, charge cannot be framed against him with reference to Section 2(c) of 1971 Act because the petitioners have not produced any legally admissible evidence to prove the contents of the speech allegedly made by the said respondent. The judgments in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose (supra) and E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (supra) do not have any bearing on this case and, therefore, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the same.