Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
M. Hariharan – Petitioner
Versus
Gopakumar Balakrishnan – Respondent
Cont.P. No. 116 of 2019
Decided On : 03-09-2019
For the Petitioner:A.E. Ravi Chandran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Vijayan for M/s. King & Partridge, Advocates.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act - Section 11 - records relating to the applicants selected for appointment - relief to set aside the appointment - appointment of LPG - had came up for consideration before this Court on 16.05.2018. The said Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the applicants selected for appointment of LPG Distributorship by the first respondent, namely, Chief Regional Manager, LPG Regional Office, Kochi, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and also against the second respondent with a relief to set aside the appointment of the second respondent Kanagaraj as a Distributor and direct the first respondent to conduct a fresh draw with eligible candidates – Held, other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed at this juncture viz., the burden and standard of proof. The common English phrase he who asserts must prove has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the standard of proof, be it noted that a proceeding under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act is quasi criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The observations of Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale (1969 3 All ER 1062) lend support to the aforesaid. Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale stated - A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it,. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time-honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence. Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt - Dictum enunciated is that the power under the contempt of Court Act shall have to be used cautiously and sparingly. In the present case, I find no reason to hold that there had been disobedience of the Orders of this Court much less wilfull disobedience of the order of the Court. As stated earlier, the order of the Court was passed at the stage of admission of the Writ Petition and prior to issue of notice to the first respondent - purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law since the image of such a majesty in the minds of the people cannot be led to be distorted. The respect and authority commanded by Courts of Law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect for the judiciary is undermined. It is true that the judiciary will be judged by the people for what the judiciary does, but in the event of any indulgence which even can remotely be termed to affect the majesty of law, the society is bound to lose confidence and faith in the judiciary and the law courts thus, would forfeit the trust and confidence of the people in general - Petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for disobedience of the Orders of this Court made in W.P.No. 11267 of 2018 dated 16.05.2018.)
1. The writ petitioner M.Hariharan in W.P. No. 11267 of 2018 has filed the present Contempt Petition complaining willful disobedience of the Order of this Court dated 16.05.2018 passed in W.P.No. 11267 of 2018 and to take such further action against the respondents for such willful disobedience.
2. W.P.No. 11267 of 2018 had came up for consideration before this Court on 16.05.2018. The said Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the applicants selected for appointment of LPG Distributorship by the first respondent, namely, Chief Regional Manager, LPG Regional Office, Kochi, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and also against the second respondent Kanagaraj with a relief to set aside the appointment of the second respondent Kanagaraj as a Distributor and direct the first respondent to conduct a fresh draw with eligible candidates.
3. At the time of admission, the Writ Petition had been disposed of with the following observation:-
“2. The first respondent is directed to pass orders on the complaint dated 12.04.2018 till orders have passed, the first respondent cannot proceed further. If order is passed and the petitioner is again aggrieved, liberty is given to the petitioner to move this Court once again. If there is redraw, the first respondent may ensure that only the eligible candidates may participate in the proceedings.”
4. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had preferred the present Contempt Petition. According to him, in violation of the directions of this Court, applications were called for appointment of Distributors for LPG Distribution and selection was also made. However, one selected person, Mrs.R.Thulasi was not eligible as she did not satisfy the requirement of either having ownership of the required land area or having lease deed for 15 years in Velliangadu Village for godown and show room.
5. To determine the facts, this Court had directed notice to the first respondent.
6. In response to the notice, Mr.Gopakumar Balakrishnan, Deputy General Manager of the first respondent had filed an affidavit. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted below:-
“13. The averments in paragraph 7 is denied and I submit that as per the Unified Guidelines for Selection of Distributorship, the eligibility of a candidate to participate in the draw of lots is determined on the basis of the information provided in the application submitted by the candidate. Hence, all applicants who have submitted their application properly with all the information required as per the Brochure will be eligible to participate in the draw of lots and as such, submission of the documents and verification of the documents is not a pre-requisite for making a candidate eligible for the draw. This was informed to the petitioner during the meeting held at the HPCL, Kochi LPG RO on the 28.03.2018 and vide letter KLRO/GBK/LPG dated 28.03.2018. This was again advised to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.04.2018. The Acceptance/Rejection of any eligible candidate can be done only on the basis of Field verification of Credentials based on the documents, which is clearly mentioned in the brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors (version 1.4). It is stated that the claim of the petitioner that he alone is eligible is not correct. I reiterate that no complaint was raised by the petitioner during the draw. It is also stated that no complaint dated 12.04.2018 has been received from the petitioner.”
7. To this affidavit, a rejoinder had been filed by the contempt petitioner and it was again reiterated that Mrs.R.Thulasi, who had been selected in the redraw held on 26.10.2018 did not satisfy the requirements and consequently her selection was illegal. Since spec
