Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Smt. Vilasiniben Ramachandran & Ors

The petitioners sent a representation to the Government along with a copy of the aforementioned judgment with a request to comply with the directions contained in the judgment. The petitioners, thereafter sent several reminders to the respondents to comply with the said judgment.

Notification was issued by the State Government wherein the lands of RS Nos. 471/2 and 472 were notified as a water body in purported compliance with the High Court's order dated 02.08.2002. By the said order, the High Court had directed the State Government to notify the water bodies in the territory of the State that vest in the State and/or the Area Development Authorities or the Local Bodies including the Panchayat in the Official Gazette within 3 months from the date of this order and not a private land.

On 25.07.2005, this Court issued notice regarding non-compliance of directions contained in para 74 confining survey Nos. 471/2 and 472. After the notice was issued in the contempt petition, the State Government filed an application for directions in IA No. 17 and 18 of 2005 for certain directions. On 09.05.2006, this Court passed the following order:-

J U D G M E N T CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 136-137 OF 2005 IN C.A. No. 6798-6799 OF 2004 WITH I.A. NO. 21-30, I.A. NOS. 17-18 & I.A. NO. 1 IN I.A. NOS. 17-18 IN C.A. NO. 6798-6799 OF 2004 Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

12) No further action can be taken for disturbing the finality of the mutation entry in view of the judgment of the High Court rendered on 24.11.2000 in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 and, therefore, there is no question of disturbing the mutation entry on the strength of the contravention of the provisions of other enactments now.

13) Civil appeal No. 5536 of 2001 preferred by the Municipal Corporation was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus the issue of ULC Act and ALC Act raised in SCA 941 of 1980 was finally concluded by the said judgment.

15) Review petition No. 33 of 2003 was also dismissed by this Court."

We, therefore, hold them guilty of willful and deliberate act of contempt of our order dated 15.10.2004. However, taking a lenient view and taking into consideration of the future prospects of the officers, we are not imposing any punishment for their willful and contumacious violation of the order of this Court. They are severely warned that they shall not involve themselves or violate the order of the highest Court of the land and will not resort to the unacceptable new pleas by way of defence for the first time in the contempt proceedings. They shall not hereafter also take the plea of inventing an innovative defence that they did not realise the implications of the order passed by this Court when no such argument was ever advanced at the time of hearing before this Court and on earlier occasions. Courts have held in a catena of decisions that where in violation of an order of this Court, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of this Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not to allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. In our opinion, the inherent power will not only be available under Section 151 CPC as available to us in such a case but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice and public interest. All the respondents are senior and experienced officers and must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme of this country orders of this Court have to be punctually obeyed and should not be trifled with. We have already found hereinabove that they have acted deliberately to subvert the orders of this Court. We, therefore, hold them guilty of contempt of Court and do hereby censure severely their conduct. Though a copy of this order could be sent which shall form part of the annual confidential record of service of each of the said officers, we refrain from doing so by taking a lenient view of the matter considering the future prospects of the officers. As already stated, the officers shall not indulge in any adventurous act and strictly obey the orders passed by the Courts of law. We by this order grant four weeks time to the respondents to comply with all our directions given in the judgment dated 15.10.2004. The petitioner is at liberty to move this Court if the directions are not complied with in its letter and spirit.

The contempt petition stands allowed and the IAs stand dismissed.