http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M.L. SACHDEV

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1990

BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  311            1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 545  1991 SCC  (1) 605        JT 1990 (4)   329  1990 SCALE  (2)926

ACT:     Contempt  of Courts Act, 1971: Section 2--M.R.T.P.  Com- mission--Filling up posts Of Chairman and Members--Direction regarding --Default of by Union of India--Secretary,  Minis- try of Industry--Held guilty of contempt.     Monopolies  and Restrictive Trade Practices  Act,  1969: Section  5--Chairman and Members of  Commission--Filling  up posts  of--Direction  regarding--Default  of by   Union   of India--Secretary,  Ministry  of  Industry--Held  guilty   of contempt.

HEADNOTE:     Article  144 of the Constitution requires  all  authori- ties,  civil and judicial, in the territory of India to  act in aid of the Supreme Court.     Section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade  Prac- tices  Act, 1969 provides that the Commission shall  consist of a Chairman and not less than two and not more than  eight other  members.  The said Commission  having  been  rendered non-functional  with the death of its Chairman in  December, 1989  and retirement of three out of four members by  March, 1990 the petitioner sought a direction to the Union of India to fill up the said posts. By its order dated April 20, 1990 the  Court  directed that the  Commission  be  appropriately constituted within three weeks. By a subsequent order  dated May 25, 1990 the Vacation Judge extended the time to  comply with   the   said  direction  till  7th  July,   1990.   The respondent-Union  having failed to comply with the order  by the said date the petitioner moved a petition for  contempt. In its order dated 12th October, 1990 the Court held that by not constituting the Commission on or before 7th July,  1990 its direction had been violated and directed issue of notice on the contempt petition.     In  the affidavit filed on October 22, 1990, the  Secre- tary, Department of Company Affairs, Ministry of  Industries of  the  Union Government averred that he did  his  best  to obtain orders of appointment of Chairman and the Members  of the  Commission as per directions of the Court,  that  there has  been no wilful negligence or intention to  disobey  the orders  and that further reasonable time may be granted  for completing the procedure of appointment.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

546 Allowing the contempt petition, the Court,     HELD: 1. The respondent-Union in the Ministry of  Indus- tries represented by the Secretary was guilty of contempt of the Court.     2.1  It  was  the obligation of the Union  of  India  to constitute  the  Commission in the manner  prescribed  under Section 5 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1969 and when it failed to do so  the  Court had given the direction comply with  the  re- quirements of law.     2.2  Once  it was found that before  the  extended  date direction was not being complied with, it was the obligation of  the respondent-contemner to approach the Court for  fur- ther  extension of time or to receive such direction as  the Court  in its discretion thought it appropriate to make.  No such  petition was ever Fried before or after 7th  of  July, 1990 and even after notice of contempt was served, such step was  not considered necessary and the Union  Government  re- mained  satisfied  by  indicating in the  affidavit  of  the contemner that extension should be given. Since the mandamus had  been  addressed to the respondent Union, it  could  not keep  away  from the Court in such a way  Without  complying with  the direction. The fact that some attempt was made  to reconstitute the Commission does not constitute an extenuat- ing circumstance.     3.1  By invoking the power of contempt, the Court  seeks only  to ensure that the majesty of the institution may  not be lowered and the functional utility of the  constitutional edifice  may  not be rendered ineffective.  It  expects  the Union of India to exhibit the most ideal conduct for  others to emulate.     3.2 In view of the offer of unqualified apology and  the fact  that  the Chairman and a Member have in  the  meantime been  appointed and the Commission in terms of s. 5  of  the Act  has  been reconstituted the Court does not  propose  to impose any punishment in the hope and trust that there would be no recurrence of the conduct.

JUDGMENT: