The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Antony Road Transport Solution Pvt Ltd vs Varsha Joshi & Ors. and connected matters consisting of Justice Rekha Palli held that when exercising contempt jurisdiction, the court must remember that the purpose of the law of contempt is to serve the public interest and enhance trust in the judicial system.
Facts:
The petitioners provided private transportation services to the Government of NCT of Delhi under a program that connected all clusters to provide safe and comfortable travel to commuters. To ensure smooth operation, the government made agreements with the petitioners and other concessionaires to provide drivers and staff for the maintenance of buses. However, the government provided conductors for the buses. The concession agreements included specific wages for the staff provided by the petitioners.
The concession agreements for a stage carriage service included a formula for paying the staff and allowed for amendment in case of a change in the law. When the minimum wages were increased, the petitioners asked for the formula to be amended, but when the government did not take action, they went to court by way of aforesaid petitions. The petitioners argued that the amount they submitted for their tenders was based on a certain minimum wage for their employees, and an increase in the minimum wage should result in additional payments from the government to cover the increased cost of providing the service. The writ petitions were allowed by the Court on 06.12.2007, with directions.
Procedural History:
The respondents were unhappy with the Division Bench's orders to change the payment formula in their agreement with the petitioners and pay according to the petitioners' calculations. They appealed to the Supreme Court through an SLP, which was later dismissed on 05.07.2018. The court allowed the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to file a review petition with the Division Bench. The government’s review petitions were rejected by the Division Bench on 26.07.2019, and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi attempted to appeal to the Apex Court, but their SLP was dismissed on 07.02.2020.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: Although the respondents were instructed to apply a specific incremental increase for each cluster separately, they were intentionally ignoring the instruction and applying the same increase to all clusters. Despite being given multiple chances to correct their mistake, they were refusing to do so even though it was accepted that the initial service hour rate for each cluster was different. Reliance was placed on Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh and All Bengal Excise Licensees’ Assn. v. Raghabendra Singh.
Respondent: The Division Bench’s sole directive was to alter the applicable formula considering the notices dated 15.09.2016 and 03.03.2017; however, the petitioners claim that the respondents had already made this adjustment. It could not be considered that the respondents had not followed the directions given by the Division Bench simply because the revision was based on the incremental increase asserted by the operator of cluster 6. Therefore, it was impossible to claim that the respondents had disobeyed orders with purpose.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench observed that all the petitions were based on whether the change to the payment formula for the petitioners and other operators by the respondents was in line with the instructions given by the Division Bench. It further stated that the respondents could be charged with contempt of court if this Court determined that the changes made to the formula by the respondents were against the directives given by the Division Bench.
Relying on Anil Ratan Sarkar's case it reiterated that in a case where two interpretations of an order are possible and there is doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct, no contempt would lie. Reference was also made to Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs. United India Insurance Company Limited wherein the Apex Court summarized the pre-conditions before a person can be held guilty of having committed civil contempt- (i) There must be a judgment or order or decree or direction or writ or other processes of a court, or An undertaking given to a court; (ii) The judgment, etc. must be of the court and undertaking must have been given to a court; (iii) There must be disobedience to such judgment, etc. or breach of such undertaking; (iv) The disobedience or breach, as the case may be, must be wilful. Relying on the All Bengal Excise Licensees Association case, it observed that a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing a breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof.
After taking note of the rulings highlighting the scope of the contempt jurisdiction, it was necessary to determine whether the respondents' position could be considered reasonable or whether their argument that the Division Bench's directives did not expressly state that the incremental increase in service rate per hour had to be taken separately for each cluster is merely an attempt to go beyond the bounds of the court's orders.
It noted that the respondents were instructed to calculate the amount payable to the concessionaires of different clusters separately, based on their individual factual matrix. The petitioners were directed to provide their calculations for this purpose. However, the respondents failed to make necessary amendments to the formula and instead applied an incremental increase to all clusters, despite knowing that each cluster had a different factual matrix and initial service hour rate. This disobedience was considered wilful. Hence, it opined that in this case, all four pre-conditions for holding the respondents guilty of contempt were made out.
It further noted that when using contempt jurisdiction, the court must remember that the purpose of the law is to serve the public and build trust in the judicial system. In this case, the respondents were deliberately trying to get around the clear directions given by the Division Bench, even though they had already failed to challenge the order multiple times.
Judgment:
For the aforesaid reasons, this Bench found the respondents guilty of Contempt of Court for wilfully disobeying the orders passed by the Division Bench in WP(C) No. 4297/2017 on 06.12.2017. These cases were listed for arguments on sentence on 14.07.2023.
Case: Antony Road Transport Solution Pvt Ltd vs Varsha Joshi & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: CONT.CAS(C) 198/2018 & Connected cases
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli
For Petitioner: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aditya Garg, Adv.
For Respondents: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Naved Ahmed & Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advs. with Ms. Alka, Section Officer, Transport Department & Mr. Ranjit Kumar, DGM, DIMTS.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
