Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 1929
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ajay Rastogi, J.K Ranka, JJ.
J.R. Dhaka - Appellant
Versus
M/s Ganptati Enterprises - Respondent
DB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3375 of 2010.
Decided On : 12-11-2014
For the Appellant:GK Garg, Sr. Advocate with Anita Agarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Wilful disobedience is an essential element of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Wilful disobedience means knowing, intentional, conscious, calculated, and deliberate disobedience with full knowledge of the consequences. It excludes casual, accidental, bona-fide, or unintentional acts or genuine inability.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - SECTION 2(B) AND 2(C) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - CIVIL CONTEMPT - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - REQUIREMENT OF WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN WILFUL AND NEGLIGENT ACTS - JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE OR COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES - APPLICATION TO FACTS OF CASE - INTERIM ARRANGEMENT FOR MILK DISTRIBUTION DURING PENDENCY OF WRIT PETITION - NO WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE FOUND - UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY TENDERED - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed challenging the termination of a milk distribution contract. The court passed an interim order restraining the authorities from awarding a fresh contract. The Dairy Sangh, however, made an interim arrangement for milk distribution through M/s Suresh Enterprises on a commission basis. The writ petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the interim order was violated. The Single Judge held the appellant, the Managing Director of the Dairy Sangh, guilty of contempt and punished him with 10 days' civil imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no wilful disobedience of the interim order by the appellant. The interim arrangement for milk distribution was made in good faith and as a necessary measure to ensure the supply of milk to the public. The appellant had also tendered an unconditional apology. The court held that the contempt proceedings were not maintainable in the absence of wilful disobedience.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had wilfully disobeyed the interim order of the court? 2. Whether the interim arrangement for milk distribution was justified? 3. Whether the appellant's unconditional apology should have been accepted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that wilful disobedience is an essential element of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Wilful disobedience means knowing, intentional, conscious, calculated, and deliberate disobedience with full knowledge of the consequences. It excludes casual, accidental, bona-fide, or unintentional acts or genuine inability. 2. The court held that the interim arrangement for milk distribution was justified as a necessary measure to ensure the supply of milk to the public. The milk being a perishable product, it could not have been stored for long. The appellant had also taken steps to discontinue the interim arrangement as soon as possible. 3. The court held that the appellant's unconditional apology should have been accepted. The apology was not an afterthought and was made bona fide. The court noted that Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 makes it clear that an apology should not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if it is made bona fide.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge holding the appellant guilty of contempt. The court held that the contempt proceedings were not maintainable in the absence of wilful disobedience.
"Shri Chandra Shekhar Sharma, ld. counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sehkari Sangh Ltd. wants a short adjournment to file reply to the writ petition. Time prayed for is allowed. Put up on 30.11.2009.
Meanwhile, the respondent-dairy is restrained from awarding contract afresh regarding distribution of milk for which the petitioner was having contract earlier".
