Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 465
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Union Of India Through Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India - Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 266 of 2020 in C.A. No. 6328-6399 of 2015
Decided on : 14-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Mr. Vikramajit Banerjee, Mr. Arijit Prasad, Mr. G. S. Makker, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Mr. Rusheet Saluja, Mr. Saif Ali, Mr. Satyendra Mani Tripathi, Mr. Pushpendra Singh Bhadoriya, Mr. Abhishek Mohanty, Mr. Naman Joshi, Mr. F. S. Nariman, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Mr. N. K. Kaul, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Shally Bhasin, Mr. Victor Das, Ms. Sayaree Basu Mallik, Ms. Vaishali Kalera, Mr. Saloni Mahajan, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Nitin Kala, Mr. Kunal Singh, Mr. Manjul Vajpai, Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. P. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Mr. Mansoor Ali Shoket, Mr. Kunal Singh, Mr. Santosh Sachin, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Mr. Brijender Chahar, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sriram P., Mr. P. Vishnu Shankar, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Manjul Bajpai, Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Mr. Mansoor Ali Shoket, Mr. Nitin Kala, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Karun Sharma, Mr. Kunal Singh, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Ms. Bani Dikshit, Mr. Prashant Rana, for M/s DSK Legal, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Ms. Manali Singhal, Mr. Mansoor Ali Shoket, Mr. Santosh Sachin, Mr. Deepak Singh Rawat, Mr. Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Mr. Abhay Chattopadhyay, Ms. Nikita Chitale, Mr. Atul Menon, Ms. Anshula, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Mr. Meet Malhotra, Mr. Ravi S. Chauhan, Mr. Pratap Shanker, Ms. Shilpi Shrivastava, Mr. Swetank Shantanu, Mr. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Ms. Snidha Mehra, Mr. B. V. Balram Das, Mr. Sriram P., M/S. D.s.k. Legal, Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Mr. Swetank Shantanu, AOR
Violation of court order and contempt proceedings
Headnote:
Contempt - Violation of Court Order - Contempt Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The companies violated the court order by not depositing the required amount despite the dismissal of the Review application. A Desk Officer of the Department of Telecommunications passed an order to scuttle the court's directive.
Finding of the Court:
The court drew contempt proceedings against the Desk Officer for passing the order and violating the court's directive. The Managing Directors/Directors of the companies were also directed to show cause for not depositing the amount.
Issues: Violation of court order, Contempt proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the actions of the companies and the Desk Officer to be in violation of the court order and initiated contempt proceedings against them.
Final Decision: The court directed the concerned parties to remain personally present in court on the next date of hearing if the court order was not complied with.
ORDER :
1. MA No. 266/2020 in C. A. No. 6328-6399 of 2015 [ITEM NO. 301]
2. M.A.D.NO. 303 OF 2020 [ITEM NO. 301.1]
3. MA NO. 339-410/2020 IN C. A. NO. 6328-6399 OF 2015 [ITEM NO.301.9]
4. MA.NO. 267-338/2020 IN C. A. NO. 6328-6399 OF 2015 [ITEM NO. 301.8]
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants seek leave to withdraw these misc. applications with liberty to avail appropriate remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law, in case necessity arises.
6. With the above liberty, the misc. applications are disposed of as withdrawn.
7. This case projects a very disturbing scenario. The companies have violated the order passed by this Court in pith and substance. In spite of the dismissal of the Review application, they have not deposited any amount so far. It appears the way in which things are happening that they have scant respect to the directions issued by this court. A Desk Officer of the Department of Telecommunications has the temerity to pass the order to the effect of issuing a direction to the Accountant General, another Constitutional Authority, “not to insist for any payment pursuant to the order passed by this Court and not to take any coercive steps till further orders.” This is nothing but a device to scuttle order of this Court. This kind of order should not have been passed by the Desk Officer at all.
8. In the circumstances, we draw contempt proceedings against the Desk Officer for passing the order and violating the order passed by this Court. The Managing Directors/Directors of the companies also to show cause why we should not initiate contempt proceedings against them for violating the order passed by this Court by not depositing the amount, on the next date of hearing. Let the concerned Officer, sitting over the order passed by this Court, also file reply.
9. It is made clear that in case the order passed by this Court is not complied with, the above persons shall remain personally present in Court on the next date of hearing.
10. List on 17.03.2020.
