ORDER :- This is an application for taking proceedings against the respondents for contempt of this Court. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered body, which is known as 'Ekka Tonga Mazdur Union'. Its Secretary is Bhagwan Das, while the remaining petitioners are its members who ply their vehicles within the limits of the Municipal Board, Aligarh. The first respondent is the Municipal Board, Aligarh, which is a superseded Board. Respondent No. 2 is the Officer-in-charge of that Board; respondent No. 3 is its Executive Officer; respondent No. 4 is the Demand Inspector; and respondent No. 5 is the Demand Clerk, while the remaining respondents are employed as clerks or peons at various Octroi posts of the Municipal Board.

2. The Municipal Board of Aligarh had been realising fees from Ekka and Tongawalas for the use of the Municipal stands situate at various places in the city. The above Union and its members had been fighting with the Municipal Board for the discontinuance of the stand-fees. In this connection they had filed two civil suits on earlier occasions, which were decided in favour of the Union. However, it appears that the Municipal Board persisted in realising stand-fees from the petitioners, with the result that they filed Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 621 of 1964 in this Court against the Aligarh Municipal Board. This writ petition was admitted by Pathak, J. on 29-3-1965, who further passed the following interim order of stay :

"During the pendency of the application, the respondent shall not realise any fee for the use of stands on Hathras Road, Iglas Road, Banna Devi Road, Sri Sikandra Rao Road, Khair Road and Chatari Road from the petitioners Nos. 2 to 7".

3. On that very day, that is, 29-3-1965, Bhagwan Das, Secretary of the Union, obtained a certified copy of the above quoted stay order and is said to have reached Aligarh on 30-3-1965. On 31-3-1965 the said Bhagwan Das handed over in the office of the Board a letter addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Municipal Board, Aligarh (Ext. A) saying that in Writ Petition No. 621 of 1964 the High Court had stayed the realisation of stand-fees, but the said order of the High Court was not being obeyed. Along with that letter he also annexed an uncertified carbon copy of the High Court's stay order dated 29-3-1965 (Ext. B). The office of the Board granted receipt for the same to Bhagwandas, which is Ext. C, dated 31-3-1965. According to Bhagwan Das he had shown the certified copy of the High Court stay order to the Executive Officer, the Demand Inspector and the Receiving clerk, before filing Exts. A and B in the Municipal Office. Exts. A and B reached the Executive Officer on that very day (31-3-1965) at about 4 p.m. when he directed the Demand Inspector as under :

"D. I.

Please to report in the matter, O. C. (Officer-in-charge) may also kindly see".

4. On 1-4-1965, the officer-in-charge passed an order saying "seen. Orders of High Court should be obeyed". When the above order of the Officer-in-charge with Exts. A and B again came to the Executive Officer on 1-4-1965, he made a remark : "D. I. to note and comply" and sent these papers forthwith to his office in order to be placed before the Demand Inspector, Kanhaiya Lal Sharma (respondent No. 4). On the night of 1-4-1965 the Executive Officer went away to Lucknow on official work and returned to Aligarh on the morning of 5-4-1965. During his absence the Municipal Medical Officer of Health was acting as Executive Officer. The seal affixed on Ext. A shows that these papers had been received in Demand Office on 2-4-1965 at 4 p.m.

Instead of complying with the High Court's order, as directed by the Executive Officer and the Officer-in-charge the Demand Inspector on 3-4-1965 made a note on Ext. A addressed to the Executive Officer that Ext. B was not a certified copy of the High Court's order and that, if deemed proper, opinion of the Municipal counsel may be obtained regarding the matter. It is strange that these papers were not place

Click Here to Read the rest of this document