Delhi High Court
Advani Oilkar Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 November, 2003
Author: V Sen
Bench: V Sen
JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. On 7.3.2003 Hon'ble A.K. Sikri, J. had remitted the petitioner's representations back to the Standing Committee for the passing of Speaking Orders within three months. This Contempt Petition was filed in July, 2003 since the compliance with the order dated 3.3,2003 had not been made. On 19.9.2003 I had noted that although the respondent had been served, she had not cared to be represented. She was, therefore, directed to be present in person on 29.10.2003. C.M. 445/2003 was thereafter filed by the respondent for recalling the order dated 19.9.2003 and for exempting the personal presence of the respondent. The prayers were allowed on 17.10.2003.
2. In this very application the position that was adopted by the respondent was that the petitioner's letter dated 2.5.2003 had not been received. This state has become the focus of contention. On the previous hearing the following order was passed:
"Paragraph 5 of the contempt petition reads thus:
'5. It is submitted that the petitioners informed the respondent authorities about the order of the Hon'ble Court on 2nd May, 2003 through correspondence. And made request to dispose of the representations according to the directions made by the Hon'ble Court. A true copy of the letter dated 2.5.2003 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent-authorities is marked and annexed hereto as Annexure P2.'
A Reply to the petition has yet not been filed. Instead, an application under Section 151 for recalling for the order dated 19.9.2003 has been filed. On that date Ms. Satwant Reddy was directed to be present in person as despite service no one was present on behalf of the respondents. Paragraph 4 of the application is as under:
'4. That the petitioners in their contempt petition have stated that they informed the respondent-authorities about the order dated 7.3.2003 of the Hon'ble Court through correspondence, on 2.5.2003. It is respectfully submitted that the said averments made by the petitioner is untrue, incorrect and misleading. No intimation as claimed by the petitioners communicating the order of the Hon'ble High Court has been received in the Department as per the record, therefore, action towards implementation of the order dated 7.3.2003 could not be initiated.'
The application has been supported by an affidavit sworn by Ms. Satwant Reddy, Additional Secretary to the Government of India. In order to establish the mis-statement contained in the application/affidavit, the petitioners have placed on record a letter dated 8.10.2003 from the Government of India, signed by the Director, Legal Metrology, mentioning the letter dated 2.5.2003. Prima facie., a false affidavit has been sworn. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naraindas v. Government of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., and Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors., , immediately come to mind.
Ms. Satwant Reddy is directed to be present in person on the next date of hearing, i.e. 31.10.2003."
3. On the basis of a fresh affidavit filed by Ms. Satwant Reddy, Mr. Maninder Singh has contended that by oversight it had not been mentioned in the letter dated 8.10.2003 that the letter dated 2.5.2003 has been received for the first time along with the Notice of the Contempt Petition. The averments contained in the affidavit dated 14.10.2003 are reiterated as correct. The explanation offered by the respondent cannot be rejected outright and is certainly, at least, a plausible one. I, therefore, give the benefit of doubt to the respondent in this respect and do not consider it appropriate to continue with further proceedings either for contempt or for perjury. It is expected that senior officers of the Government shall be more careful about statements contained in their affidavits.
4. On the merits of the case, Mr. Maninder Singh has explained that the representation was received only in September, 20003 and immediately a fresh hearing was granted on 21.10.2003. The detailed Speaking Orders is dated 23.10.2003 and is Annexure A and is available on the record. The respondent has been remiss in the manner in which these legal proceedings have been handled. Even though the order dated 7.3.2003 disposing of C.W.No. 5069/1997 was passed ex parte, it was the bounden duty of the respondents to follow up their case. The cavalier attitude must be censured. Since the representation has been disposed of by order dated 23.10.2003, this petition is disposed of as satisfied, with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the respondent to the petitioner.
