Telangana High Court
Sri Venkateswara Service Station, vs Sri Shrikant Madhav Vaidya on 3 January, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CONTEMPT CASE No.1272 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Dominic
Fernandes, learned Senior Designated Counsel for Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent.
2. The petitioner approached the Court complaining violation of
the orders of this Court dated 29.11.2023 passed W.P.No.12345 of
2011 and W.P.No.29128 of 2012.
3. The relevant paragraph No.26 of the order
dated 29.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and
W.P.No.29128 of 2012 is extracted hereunder:
26. "Taking into consideration the above referred
facts and circumstances and the discussion arrived at as
above W.P.No.12345 of 2011 is allowed and the
Respondent Corporation is directed to consider the case of
the Petitioner for restoration of the retail outlets of the
Petitioner situated at Kompally and Madhapur, Ranga
Reddy District and the impugned orders in W.P.No.29128
of 2012 is allowed as well and the impugned order
SDO/RO/2022, dated 21.07.2011 of the 2nd Respondent is
set aside including termination order dt. 06.01.2005
passed by the Respondents and the Respondent
Corporation is directed to reconsider the representations
dated 05.05.2010, 10.07.2010 and 06.08.2010, of the
Petitioner seeking restoration of the retail outlets of the
Petitioner situated at Kompally and Madhapur, Ranga
Reddy District, within a period of 3 weeks from the date
of receipt of the copy of the order duly considering the
observations made in particular at para 23 and also the
discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above in the
present judgment, in accordance to law in conformity with
the principles of natural justice by providing an
opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and duly
communicate the decision to the Petitioner. However,
there shall be no order as to costs."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the proceedings dated 21.02.2024 issued by the respondent-
Corporation, in compliance to the directions of this Court
dated 29.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and
W.P.No.29128 of 2012, are not in true spirit of the orders of this
Court and there is deliberate violation of the orders of this Court
dated 29.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and
W.P.No.29128 of 2012.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
in support of his submission placed reliance on paragraph
No.13 of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Contempt
Case Nos.1530, 1531, 1547 of 2019, 190, 755 of 2020 and
304 of 2021, which is extracted hereunder:
"13. This Court having considered the rival submissions
made by the parties is of the view that this Court has perused
the 1st rejection orders, dated 23.09.2019, and a perusal of the
said rejection orders makes it very clear that the cases of the
petitioners were rejected only on the ground that the entire
process of offering appointment to the candidates was
completed on 30.11.2012 and as per the regulations of the
respondents, the validity of panel on year is only valid only for
two (2) years and at this point of time, the question of
considering the cases of the petitioners would not arise. These
are the reasons assigned in the 1st rejection orders and in the
2nd rejection orders dated 30.03.2021, only contending that the
petitioners are not the next meritorious candidates, the cases
of the petitioners were rejected. The respondents have not
even said that the cases of the petitioners are being considered
against the non-joined posts and how many non-joined posts
are there is not spelt out while disposing of the main writ
petition. Learned Standing Counsel has admitted that there are
50 non-joined vacancies and based upon the submissions
made by the learned Standing Counsel only, the writ petition
itself was disposed of. When there are 50 non-joined
vacancies, the respondents ought to have considered the cases
of the petitioners in the said 50 non- joined vacancies and the
cases of the petitioners should have been considered taking
into account all the aspects viz., the persons who have not
Joined, what was the rank of the person who has relinquished;
what was the rank of the petitioners; who is the last selected
candidate; who are the candidates offered appointment, and
what were the ranks of the persons who have not joined. This
entire exercise ought to have been done by the respondents
before selecting the candidates. Admittedly, in both the
rejection orders, no where it is stated that the cases of the
petitioners are being considered against the non-joined
persons. Therefore, the respondents have deliberately and
wilfully violated by passing both rejection orders, dated
23.09.2019 and revised rejection orders, dated 30.03.2021. A
perusal of the record further discloses that after 1st rejection
order passed on 23.09.2019, the respondents have preferred
writ appeal before this Court and after dismissal of the writ
appeal, the respondents have once again passed the rejection
orders on 31.03.2021 and after 2nd rejection order, the
respondents have preferred SLP and the respondents have also
not informed the Hon'ble Supreme Court about the revised
rejection orders, dated 31.03.2021 and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was pleased to dispose of the SLPs by permitting the
learned Single Judge to deal with the Contempt based upon the
explanation submitted by the respondents on dated
23.09.2019 and appropriate orders be passed in accordance
with law. This Court having perused the rejection orders,
dated 23.09.2019 and revised rejection orders, dated
31.03.2021, it is found that no where it is stated that the cases
of the petitioners are being considered against the non-joined
vacancies. Therefore, the respondents who were present in the
Court were defiant in complying the orders passed by this
Court and this Court having no other option except to punish
the respondents for wilful violation of the orders passed by this
Court and to sentence the respondents."
6. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent contends that in compliance to the directions of this
Court dated 29.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and
W.P.No.29128 of 2012, after providing an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner, the respondent had issued the
proceedings dated 21.02.2024, which is in true compliance of the
orders of this Court and there is no deliberate disobedience of the
orders of this Court as alleged by the petitioner.
7. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent in support of his submissions places
reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court vide
judgment dated 01.03.2011 in contempt case No.997 of
2010 and the relevant portion of the said order is extracted
hereunder:
"1. A plain reading of the above would show that
the same was passed in implementation of the order of
this Court in Review W.A.M.P.No.2655 of 2008 and that
the President of India had sanctioned grant of 70%
pensionary benefits to the petitioner with effect from
29.04.2009 under Regulation 16(a) of the Regulations
and that PCDA (P), Allahabad, was requested to work
out the amount involved in implementation of the Court
order and intimate the same to the Ministry for ex post
facto sanction. This is certainly an order in consideration
of the mandamus issued by this Court. The petitioner's
counsel, however, submits that the said order is not in
accordance with the true letter and spirit of the
mandamus issued by this Court and also Regulation
16(a) of the Regulations. We are afraid, the Court
cannot go into this question in contempt proceedings.
The respondents passed necessary orders as directed by
this Court. Whether the orders are passed in accordance
with the directions by this Court cannot be subject
matter of a contempt case. If so advised, the petitioner
has to seek redressal elsewhere as it might itself provide
a fresh cause of action. We are well supported by the
decisions of the Supreme Court in J.S.Parihar v
Ganpat Duggar [4] Chhotu Ram v Urvashi Gulati [5]
and Anil Ratan Sarkar v Hirak. Ghosh.[6]
2. In Ganpat Duggar, the Division Bench of
Rajasthan High Court look the view that when an order
passed - in that case preparation of seniority list - after
the Judgment of the Court; even if such order is wrong
and not in conformity with the directions of the Court, it
cannot be considered to be in wilful violation of the
order. The appeal before the Supreme Court was
rejected observing as under (para 6 of SCC).
.....whether it is in conformity with the
directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen
that once there is an order passed by the
Government on the basis of the directions issued by
the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to
seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The
preparation of the seniority list may be wrong
or may be right or may or may not be in
conformity with the directions. But that would
be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved
party to avail of the opportunity of judicial
review. But that cannot be considered to be
the wilful violation of the order. After re-
exercising the judicial review in contempt
proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned
Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the
seniority list.
(emphasis supplied)
3. In Chhotu Ram (which was followed in Anil Ratan
Sarkar), the Supreme Court was dealing with a similar case.
The Supreme Court in its earlier decision in Chhotu Ram v
State of Haryana [7], directed the respondent therein to
consider the case of Chhotu Ram for promotion to the post of
Sub-Divisional Officer in Haryana Service of Engineers Class
II, on the basis that he was qualified by the cut off dated 1-1-
1980. The Supreme Court also directed to give all
consequential benefits, it he was considered fit for promotion
as in September, 1980. The case of the petitioner therein was
considered, and by order dated 20-11-2000, the Government
rejected the case of Chhotu Ram on the ground that his name
did not find a place for promotion in the list of sub-Divisional
Officer, and his claim does not hold good. Before the Supreme
Court, two questions were raised. The first question was as to
the burden of standard of proof required. It was held that "it
would be too hazardous to sentence in exercise of contempt
jurisdiction on mere probabilities", and further ruled that the
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act being quasi-
criminal, the breach alleged, has to be established beyond
reasonable doubt. The second question was whether the
contemnors therein committed contempt in spite of the fact
that the case of Chhotu Ram was considered and rejected.
Answering the issue in the negative, the Supreme Court
observed:
......This Court by reason of the order dated
8-10-1999 did not issue a mandate but
issued a direction for consideration only. In
the event, however, the matter being not
considered or in the event consideration was
effected in a manner to whittle down the
claim of the petitioner, initiation of the
proceedings cannot but be said to be
justified. But in the event, however,
contextual facts depict that the consideration
was effected in accordance with the normal
rules, practice and procedure and upon such
consideration, no promotion could be offered
to the petitioner, question of there being any
act of contempt would not arise...."
8. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent in support of his submission placed
reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
dated 18.11.2002 passed in C.A.No.14 of 2002 in "Santhi
Kumari Vs. K. Ravi and another" reported in 2002 SCC online
AP 1003: (2003) 2 ALD 460: (2002) 6 ALT 326: 2003 Cri LJ
1596: (2003) 1 CCC 27 and contends that the petitioner has
a fresh cause of action and the petitioner has a remedy to
challenge the proceedings dated 21.02.2024 and the merits
of the said proceedings dated 21.02.2024 cannot be gone
into contempt jurisdiction and the relevant paragraph
Nos.57, 60 and 61 of the said judgment hereunder:
" 57. In J.S. Parihar V. Ganpat Duggar, (1996) 6
SCC 291, the Supreme Court observed that "once there
is an order passed by the Government on the basis of
the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh
cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate
forum." It may be necessary to notice the facts in the
said case in order to appreciate the ratio of the
decision:
60. Similar is the view taken by the Supreme
Court in Chhotu Ram (supra), in which it is held that
"when promotion was considered in accordance with
normal rules, practice and procedure in the light of the
directions of the Court and if the candidate was not
found fit and if an order has been passed to that effect,
the same would not amount to committing any
contempt as such."
61. In Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao,
(2000) 10 SCC 285, the Supreme Court observed that
"the High Court cannot issue directions in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in a contempt proceeding compelling the
authorities to act in any particular manner." The
observations made may have to be understood in the
contextual background of the facts in the said case."
9. This Court opines that the order of this Court dated
29.11.2023, passed in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and W.P.No.29128 of
2012 had been complied with duly complying with the principles of
natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to
the petitioner and detailed proceedings dated 21.02.2024 had been
issued by the respondent. This Court opines that the merits of the
said proceedings cannot be gone into contempt jurisdiction, and this
Court is of the firm opinion that the respondents passed necessary
orders as directed by this Court and there is no willful disobedience
of the orders of this Court as contended by the petitioner.
10. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
a). The submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Senior
Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-
Corporation,
b). The observations in the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court referred to in the Division Bench Judgment of
this Court dated 18.11.2002 passed in C.A.No.14 of 2002 in
"Santhi Kumari Vs. K. Ravi and another" reported in 2002
SCC online AP1003 and the judgment of Division Bench of
this Court dated 01.03.2011 passed in C.C.No.997 of 2010
(referred to and extracted above).
c). The proceedings dated 21.02.2024 issued in
pursuance to the orders of this Court 29.11.2023 passed in
W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and W.P.No.29128 of 2012, the
contempt case is closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to
challenge the proceedings issued by the respondent-
Corporation dated 21.02.2024 vide ref No.Retail-
HO/TAPSO23-24/01, in compliance to the directions of this
Court dated 29.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and
W.P.No.29128 of 2012. However, there is no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 03.01.2025
Dsu
