Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4857
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
P.S. RANA,J
M/S VARDHMAN ISPAT UDYOG – Appellant
Versus
KAMLESH SAKLANI – Respondent
COPC/406/2023
Civil contempt occurs when a party willfully disobeys a court order, and an apology must demonstrate genuine contrition to be accepted.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12(1) - Civil contempt proceedings initiated against respondent for willful disobedience of court orders - Respondent, a Law Officer, failed to disclose stay order during proceedings before HPERC, leading to contempt allegations - Court emphasized the importance of compliance with judicial orders and the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. (Paras 21, 22, 24, 34)
(B) Apology - The court rejected the respondent's apology as insincere and merely a defense against contempt charges, emphasizing that true contrition must be evident for an apology to be accepted. (Paras 28, 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed contempt proceedings against the respondent for violating a stay order issued by the court on 19.08.2023, which was intended to halt the operation of an Ombudsman order. The respondent, despite knowledge of the stay, proceeded with arguments before HPERC, leading to the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found the respondent-contemnor guilty of contempt for failing to comply with the court's order and emphasized the necessity of upholding the authority of the judiciary.
Issues: The main issues included whether the respondent willfully disobeyed the court's order and the sincerity of the apology tendered by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondent's actions constituted contempt due to willful disobedience of a court order, and that an apology must reflect genuine contrition to be accepted.
Result: The respondent was convicted of contempt and sentenced to civil imprisonment until the rising of the court and fined Rs.2000/-.
2. The petitioner filed CMPMO No. 449 of 2023 wherein it assailed the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Ombudsman in Complaint No. 18 of 2023. On 19.08.2023, this Court passed an interim order and stayed the operation of the order dated 27.07.2023.
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent- contemnor, who is an authorised representative and Law Officer Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes of HPSEB Ltd. (Respondent in CMPMO No. 440 of 2023), was having knowledge about the passing of the order dated 19.08.2023, intentionally violated the order passed by this Court by proceeding further with arguments before the HPERC by not disclosing that there was a stay order passed by this Court.
4. The facts which are essential for the adjudication of this case have been set out in para-2 of the petition, which are as under:-
28.07.2023 Impugned order is passed by the Ld. Ombudsman, whereby a reference was made to HPERC in Review Proceedings. Next date fixed for 22.08.2023 Ann. R-1 to this petition 10.08.2023 HPSEBL filed a petition before the HPERC on the basis of the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 Ann. R-2 to this Petition.
19.08.2023 This Hon’ble Court granted a stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Ombudsman The same was passed in the presence of HPSEBL.
Ann. R-3 to this petition 22.08.2023 The matter was listed before the ombudsman. Recorded that the Hon’ble High Court granted a stay alongwith the details and particulars of proceedings before Ann. R-4 to this petition High Court.
Sh. Kamlesh Saklani represented the HPSEBL. In his presence the order of Ombudsman is passed.
17.10.2023 Petition in due course was also for the first time before HPERC and notice was issued to the petitioner.
HPSEBL is represented by the same authorised representative.
Intentionally not disclosed the stay order dated 19.08.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court. Ex-parte argued the matter and got the proceedings initiated despite the stay order by this Hon’ble Court.
Ann. R-5 to this petition 18.11.2023 Petitioner addressed a detailed communication to the HPERC.
Ann. R-6 to this petition
5. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is claimed that the respondent-contemnor has committed fraud upon the HPERC by intentionally violating the order passed by this Court which independently amounts to the Contempt of the Court.
6. It is lastly averred that when this Court passed the order on 19.08.2023, the same was passed in presence of the Standing Counsel of the HPSEBL. Thereafter, when the review petition was listed before the Ombudsman on 22.07.2023, the same was adjourned sine die because of the pendency of the subject matter before this Court and this was so recorded in the order passed by the Ombudsman and this all was done in presence of the respondent-contemnor, whose attendance has been marked in the order. Yet the respondent-contemnor appeared before the HPERC on 17.10.2023 and addressed arguments by intentionally not disclosing the fact of the stay being granted. As a result whereof, the HPERC initiated proceedings in terms of the Ombudsmand order dated 28.07.2023, the operation of which had already been stayed by this Court on 19.08.2023.
7. It is in this background that the present proceedings came to be initiated against the respondent-contemnor.
8. The respondent-contemnor contested the contempt proceedings by filing a reply wherein in para 1 of the preliminary submissions, it has been averred as under:-
- “1. That the replying respondent is a law-abiding citizen and more so is associated with the legal profession being a Law Graduate and is perform his duties as authorized representative and is assisting the Standing Counsels for prosecuting and defending the cases of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity
