1 CP 70 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 70 OF 2010 Babasaheb s/o Mhatarba Nikam, Age 48 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Vadiwadi, Taluka and District Jalna Petitioner V E R S U S 1. Annasaheb Shinde, District Supply Officer, Collector Office, Jalna. 2. Jairam Pawar, Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Jalna. 3. The State of Maharashtra Respondents Mr. V.D. Patnoorkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for the respondents CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 18th January, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition seeking action under Contempt of Courts Act against the certain officers of the Government of Maharashtra for not obeying certain order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution), Order, 1975 which was promulgated by the State of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by certain provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Order was made for controlling and distribution of scheduled commodities within 2 CP 70 of 2010 the State. Section 3 of the Order empowered the Collector of a District to issue authorization for running a Fair Price Shop. The said provision also empowered the Collector to cancel such authorization after due inquiry and after recording reasons for such cancellation. The petitioner was one of such authorized Fair Price Shop owners and his authorization was cancelled by the Collector. Aggrieved by such Order, the petitioner preferred a revision, as provided under Section 24 of the Order before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), who after hearing the petitioner thought it fit to set aside the order passed by the Collector and directed the State of Maharashtra to restore the earlier position of authorization and to restore the supply of scheduled commodities to the petitioner forthwith. Admittedly, the State of Maharashtra did not restore the earlier position and kept the petitioner waiting for the restoration. The petitioner in this situation came to this Court in this petition. 2. It is the case of petitioner that by not obeying the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), the State of Maharashtra has committed contempt of Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the State of Maharashtra has committed Civil contempt, as defined under Section 2 (b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under : Section 2 (b) : "Civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court." 3. In reply to the notice issued for the preliminary hearing, the State of Maharashtra took a defence that the Deputy Commissioner 3 CP 70 of 2010 (Supply) was not a ‘Court’, as contemplated by the above mentioned provision. In support of this contention, Shri Kaldate, the learned AGP placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Dhondu Hanmant Reshim v. The State of Maharashtra and another (1997 (3) Bom. C.R. 153). The learned Single Judge of this Court was considering the question, as to whether the Tribunal established under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is a Court, as contemplated by Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Single Judge held that the expression "Court" is distinct and separate from the Tribunal. A Tribunal may have power to discharge quasi judicial functions as well as administrative functions but a Court is one which is invested with the judicial power inherent only in the Court and not in the tribunal. The Commissioner while passing administrative orders or hearing appeals cannot be termed as Court. The same analogy would apply to the present case. the Collector while issuing authorization for a Fair Price Shop or for canceling such authorization essentially passes administrative order. Such order if revisable under Section 24 and the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to hear such revision, no doubt, the Collector as well as the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of deciding the fate of a petitioner have to discharge quasi judicial functions. But, it would be incorrect to say that while discharging such functions they act as ‘Court’. 4. The reliance of Shri Patnoorkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner on the Supreme Court Judgment in the cases of K. Shamrao and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner (AIR 4 CP 70 of 2010 2003 Supreme Court 1828) and Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar (AIR 1992 Supreme Court 904) is misplaced. The Judgment in the case of Pritam Pal did not deal with the question involved as to whether certain authority could be said to be a Court, as contemplated by the provisions of Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Whereas, the Supreme Court dealt with such question and held that the Assistant Charity Commissioner while discharging his quasi judicial functions is a Court as contemplated by Sections 2 and 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act in K.Shamrao's case. The Supreme Court having regard to the nature of questions that the Assistant Charity Commissioner decided and the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act held that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has not only the trapping of a judicial tribunal but also has power to give a decision or a definite judgment which has finality and authoritativeness which are essential tests of a judicial pronouncement. In comparison, the Collector as well as the Deputy Commissioner deciding matters under the provisions of above mentioned Order, apparently do not possess such trappings though they decide finally the rights of the parties arising from the provisions of the Order. The Contempt Petition should therefore fail. The Contempt Petition stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/cp/70/10/18/1/11ok