Delhi High Court
Sunil Bansal vs A V Rao & Ors on 24 November, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 839/2014
SUNIL BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Manish Kumar with Mr.Anil
Goel, Advocates.
versus
A V RAO & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Anil K.Batra, Advocate for R- 1
to 3.
% Date of Decision : 24th November, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience
of the order dated 8th August, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court
in W.P.(C) No.17451/2005 in respect of E-Tender floated by the respondent-
BPCL in August, 2014.
2. In the petition, the only allegation is that the respondent-BPCL had
awarded E-Tender in favour of forty-six tank trucks without the said
vehicles possessing any valid/existing fitness certificates.
3. In the reply-affidavit, the respondent-BPCL has stated that the fitness
certificates of forty tank trucks have been received and the said certificates
have been confirmed by the respective RTOs. The fitness certificates of said
forty tank trucks have been enclosed with the reply-affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-BPCL states that out of remaining
6 tank trucks, three have not been issued any Letter of Intent (LOI), while
the remaining three tank trucks have only been issued provisional LOI/work
permits.
5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner states that none of these
forty-six tank trucks have explosive licences in accordance with the Division
Bench order dated 8th August, 2007.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
the Division Bench in its order dated 8th August, 2007 had recorded the
respondents' undertaking that they would issue provisional LOI/work
permits for transportation of petroleum products and thereafter send the
documents for verification to the departments who had issued the licences.
It was further undertaken by respondent-BPCL that only upon receipt of the
confirmation of the validity/genuineness of the said documents, the said
LOI/work permits would be converted into regular contracts for
transportation of the petroleum products.
7. Since in the present instance, the only averment in the contempt
petition is that the contracts for transportation of petroleum products had
been issued without the forty-six tank trucks having valid/existing fitness
certificates, this Court is of the view that learned counsel for the petitioner's
verbal allegation today that the forty-six tank trucks do not possess
explosive licences cannot be examined in the present proceedings. After all,
it is settled law that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and
the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding. [See: All
India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. L.K.Tripathi & Ors., (2009)
5 SCC 417].
8. As in the present case, the fitness certificates of forty tank trucks out
of forty-six tank trucks have been enclosed and a statement has been made
that verification process with regard to three tank trucks is on-going and the
remaining three tank trucks have been issued only provisional LOI/work
permits, this Court is of the view that there is no wilful disobedience of the
Division Bench judgment and order dated 8th August, 2007.
9. In fact, this Court is constrained to observe that the petitioner had
approached this Court without doing any proper research and without
appreciating the scope and ambit of the contempt proceedings. The
petitioner, to put it mildly, has taken the contempt proceedings very lightly.
Since the contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the petitioner
should have done its due diligence and then approached this Court.
10. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 24, 2016
KA
