Back
2008 Supreme(Bom) 80
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
B.R. GAVAI, J.
Prashant Bansilal Bamb - Petitioner
vs.
Shri Nand Lal, State Election Commissioner and others – Respondents.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 17 of 2007
Decided on: 22nd January, 2008.
Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel, with Mr. P.S.
Shendurnikar, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. N.B. Khandare, learned G.P. for respondent No.3
& 4,
Mr. V.J. Dixit, Advocate for respondent No.1 .
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 2(b), (c) and 12-Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996, Rule 4-Contempt of Court-Court ordered to follow rotation in reservation-Election Commission-Stated inability to follow order in election in 2006-It moved to Apex Court by S.L.P. but later withdrew it-Filed revision before Division Bench-Announcement of programme without following direction was wilful disregard of Court’s order-Charge framed in contempt-Proceeding against Commission, the order passed by the Court-Shall stand stayed so that respondent No. 1 may file appeal before Division Bench.-When the order passed by the Court is capable of two interpretations and a party eventually acts on one interpretation, the act cannot be said to be deliberate or wilful or intentional so as to commit the act of contempt. However, when there is no scope of two interpretations of the order passed by the Court, when the order is clear and unambiguous, a party cannot contend that though it has erroneously interpreted it, it should be granted benefit. The order passed by the Court dated 3rd October, 2006 is clear and unambiguous. It is clearly observed by the Court that the reservation provided earlier was not in accordance with the said rules. It is clearly held that the Election Commission should follow the reservation policy as prescribed under the rules. In unequivocal terms the reservations provided earlier were struck down and direction to observe the rotation policy in accordance with the said rules was issued.
The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is only to ensure that the rule of law and the majesty of law is maintained. The observance of the orders passed by the Court is fundamental to the democratic set up and working of the Constitution. A person, howsoever high he may be, is bound to comply with the orders passed by the Court. Even a Judge of the Court cannot say that he is not bound to obey the orders passed by the Court.
1. The present petition has been filed by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6389/2006, thereby pointing out to the notice of this court the acts of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which, according to the petitioner amounts to contempt of court.
2. An order dated 20th June, 2006 prescribing reservation of seats in the electoral divisions of Aurangabad District for Zilla Parishad General Elections, 2007 was issued by the Election Commission for the State of Maharashtra. Writ Petition No. 5386/2006 came to be filed raising a grievance that the reservation of seats for the said elections was not in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules" for the same of brevity). The said petition was heard finally by the Division Bench of this court.
The main grievance of the petitioners in the said petition was that as the said rules were not made applicable, the reservations in most of the constituencies were repeated. It was submitted that if the rotation was worked out in accordance with the said rules, the repetition in reservations would be avoided. A ground was raised by the State Election Commission before the Division Bench of this court that the said rules of 1996 will not be applicable to the elections which are scheduled to be held in 2007 and they would be applicable only in the subsequent elections that may be held. This court found that with the increase in the number of electoral divisions the reservation is likely to be repeated in respect of some electoral divisions. This court further observed that, "however, the respondents ought to exercise proper care to see that as far as possible the reservation is not repeated. This does not appear to have been done. The respondents have not observed the aforesaid Rule 4 of 1996 in its letter and spirit."(emphasis supplied). A ground regarding tenability of the petition in view of the Constitutional bar under Article 243 was also urged before this court by the State Election Commission. However, this court found that since the respondents have neither produced before this court the notification nor have stated the date of notification declaring the election, the said ground was without substance and as such, rejected the said contention.
3. This court, therefore, vide order dated 3rd October, 2006 made rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) of the said petition, thereby quashing and setting aside the reservation as was directed by order dated 20th June, 2006. This court further directed the respondents to forthwith allot the reservation by observing the rotation policy in its letter and spirit.
4. After the judgment and order was pronounced by this court on 3rd October, 2006, a request was made on behalf of the State Election Commission for grant of stay to the judgment and order passed by this court. Accordingly, this court had granted stay to the aforesaid judgment and order for a period of 4 weeks from the date of the said judgment and order.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this court in W.P. No. 5386/2006, a Special Leave Petition came to be filed before the Honourable Apex Court. In the Special Leave Petition the grounds raised were that, (1) the said rules will not have applicability in the elections scheduled to be held in 2006 but it would be applicable only in the subsequent elections; and (2) that if the judgment and order of this court were to be implemented,then it was impossible to hold the elections within the specified period.
6. The stay granted by this court to its order dated 3rd October,2006 was continued by the Honourable Apex Court at the stage of mentioning and thereafter again, on 3rd November, 2006, when the matter was listed for admission. The stay was continued for a period of two weeks.
7.
