http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: BIGYAN KUMAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/03/1988

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1988 SCR  (3) 280        1988 SCC  (3) 603  JT 1988 (1)   591        1988 SCALE  (1)538

ACT:      Contempt of  Courts  Act,  1971:  Sections  2  and  12- obedience to  Court orders-Necessity  for-on failure-Rod  of justice to descend down to punish-Growing conduct of parties and  public  officers,  in  particular,  of  ignoring  Court orders-Deprecated.      Practice and  Procedure: orders  of  Court-Everyone  to render due obedience-Failure should be punished.

HEADNOTE: %      The Supreme  Court issued certain directions in respect of   petitioner    No.   9   regarding   accommodation   and reinstatement in  service in a writ petition filed on behalf of forty  petitioners, working  in Pension  Paying  officer, Pokhara, in  Nepal, praying  for directions  to the Union of India,  regarding   their  permanency   and  other  benefits applicable to similar Union Government employees.      In the petition for contempt, it was alleged that these directions were  not implemented, and that consequent to the filing of  the writ  petition, the  authorities,  especially local officers, were ill-treating the Petitioners.      On  notice   being  issued,   affidavit  on  behalf  of respondents  Nos.   1  to  3  and  5  were  filed  tendering unconditional  apology,   and  explaining   their  positions regarding the implementation of the Court’s orders.      Respondent No.  6, who was the officer-ln-charge of the Pension Paying  officer and  who  was  responsible  for  the implementation of  the  Court’s  orders,  also  tendered  an unconditional apology  and stated,  in his  affidavit,  that petitioner  No.   9  was  dispossessed  of  the  residential accommodation on  14th  August,  1987,  by  which  time  the Court’s orders  of 7th August, 1987 had not been received by him, and the accommodation had already been given to another person, that  petitioner No. 9 was later restored to service and given  possession of  similar accommodation and that the rent paid  by the  petitioner for  the private accommodation will be  paid out  of Government  account, and requested for condonation 281 of delay in implementing the orders of this Court.      Disposing of the Petition,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

^      HELD:  This   Court  records  it  serious  concern  and disapproval of  the growing  conduct of  parties and  public officers, in  particular, of  ignoring the directions of the Court and the multiplying instances of confrontation. [285F]      The Court,  including the  apex one  is a  part of  the State and  is a  built-in mechanism  of the  Constitution to administer justice  in accordance  with law. For discharging that duty,  the Court  has  got  to  adopt  an  attitude  of critical assessment  of situations connected with litigation brought  before   it  for   adjudication.  The   manner   of functioning of  the Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be  dispassionate, objective  and analytical.  The Judges who preside  over these  courts do  not act  with a sense of superiority; nor  do they  look  down  upon  others  in  the community. [285F-G]      In order  that the  system may efficiently work and the purpose for which the courts are established is duly served, it is  necessary that  everyone within  the framework of the Rule of  Law must accept the system, render due obedience to orders made  and in  the event of failure of compliance, the rod of  justice must descend down to punish. Everyone within the system  must  realise  this  situation  and  should  not unnecessarily get into a confrontation. [285H; 286A-B]      In the  instant case,  there is  some material which if probed into  further, might have established that respondent No. 6  had notice of the order of this Court before physical dispossession of  the  petitioner  was  effected.  There  is allegation of  adoption of  an  attitude  of  resentment  by respondent No.  6 or  for  the  matter  of  that  the  local officers, when  the writ  petition was  filed in this Court. That backdrop  could supply  the motive  for  the  delay  in complying with the directions of this Court. It is, however, not considered expedient to probe further into the matter on account of  the fact that there has been compliance and each of the respondents has tendered unqualified apology which is accepted and  the contempt  notice is  discharged.  [285D-E; 286B]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Contempt Petition  (Civil)  No. 27860 of 1987 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 591 of 1987.                              In      Writ Petition (Civil) No. 591 of 1987. 282      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      Pankaj Kalra for the Petitioners.      M.K. Banerjee,  Solicitor General, A.K. Ganguli, Ms. A. Subhashini, P.  Parmeshwaran and  B.  Parthasarthi  for  the Respondents.      The following order of the Court was delivered:                          O R D E R      An application  under Article  32 of  the  Constitution being Writ  Petition No.  591 of 1987 has been filed in this Court on  behalf of  40 employees  working  in  the  Pension Paying office,  Pokhara in  Nepal asking  for a direction to the Union  of India  to make the services of the petitioners permanent and  for  further  directions  in  the  matter  of payment of allowances and other material benefits as payable to similar  employees under the Union Government. Notice was ordered on  the application  on 14th  July,  1987,  and  two weeks’ time  was allowed to the respondents for filing their counter affidavit.  On 3rd  August, 1987, the court directed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

as follows:                "Two weeks are allowed to the respondents for           filing a  counter affidavit.  No further time will           be allowed.  One week  thereafter is  allowed  for           filing rejoiner.  Put up  this matter  after three           weeks. Meanwhile,  status quo as on today shall be           maintained."            (underlining is ours). On 7th  August, 1987,  the Court  made the following further order:                "Issue notice  returnable on August 14, 1987.           Mr. B. Parathasarathy accepts the notice for Union           of India.                Respondent  is   directed  to   file  counter           affidavit within one week from today.                In the meanwhile petitioner No. 9 will not be           evicted from the quarter now occupied by him. " Again on 14th August, 1987, the Court further directed: 283                " ....  Petitioner No.9  will be  put back in           possession of  the government  quarter if  he  has           already been evicted . " Ultimately on  11th September,  1987, a three-Judge Bench of this Court directed:                "Petitioner  No.  9  will  be  reinstated  in           service and  he  will  also  have  to  be  put  in           possession of his quarter forth-with." On the  allegation that  the directions  of  this  Court  in regard to petitioner No. 9 were not implemented, the present contempt proceeding  has been  initiated on  behalf  of  the petitioners.      Petitioners have  alleged that  with the  filing of the writ petition,  the treatment provided to the petitioners by the establishment  has undergone  a change  and those of the respondents who  have local  base in Nepal have started ill- treating the petitioners. Several allegations have been made in support of the aforesaid plea. After notice was issued on this petition, the different respondents have filed separate affidavits in return.      The Indian  Embassy for  Nepal is located at Kathmandu. The Pension  Paying office is maintained at some distance at a place called Pokhara. It is the common case of the parties that the  necessity to  maintain such an office is linked up with the  historical fact  that several inhabitants of Nepal worked in  the Indian Army under the Gorkha Regiment. Mainly for their  convenience this  extra territorial establishment is being maintained. Some of the petitioners are India-based while others  are residents  of Nepal.  The establishment at Pokhara is  under the  direct control of an officer attached to the  Indian Embassy  styled as  officer-in-Charge, Indian Embassy, Pension  Paying office,  Pokhara. The Ambassador of the Indian  Embassy at  Kathmandu, being  the head of Indian Government establishments  in Nepal,  has  also  supervisory jurisdiction over  the Pay  office. Respondent  No.  S,  the Military and  Air Attache  of the Indian Embassy is the link between the  Embassy establishment at Kathmandu and the said Officer-in -Charge  at Pokhara.  Respondent  No.  3  is  the Controller of  Defence Accounts  who inter alia oversees the disbursement  of  the  pension  of  the  ex-Army  personnel. Respondent No.  1 is  the Union of India through its Defence Secretary and  respondent No.  2 is  the  Secretary  of  the Ministry  of   External  Affairs.   Admittedly  both   these respondents 284 are based  in Delhi and have been impleaded being in overall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

charge of their establishments.      Shri  S.K.   Bhatnagar,  Defence   Secretary,  in   his affidavit has  taken the  stand that  he was  not personally impleaded in the writ petition. Only when he was served with notice in  the contempt matter he came to know about Court’s directions  and   realised  the   full  implication  of  the situation when  he had  a conference with his senior counsel on December  6, 1987.  Immediate action  was taken to ensure appropriate compliance. Shri K.P.S. Menon, Foreign Secretary in the  Ministry of External Affairs has also taken the plea that he  was not personally impleaded as a party in the writ petition and  came to  know about  the Court’s  order at the same conference with senior counsel on December 6, 1987, and ensured immediate  compliance with  Court’s directions. Both these  Secretaries   to   the   Government   have   tendered unconditional  apology.   The  third   respondent   is   the Controller of  Defence Accounts, Central Command, Meerut. He has taken  the stand that petitioner No. 9, Shri C.N. Dubey, is not an employee of the establishment of the Controller of Defence Accounts  at Meerut  nor is he an employee under his administrative control.  According to him, he has no concern with any  executive or administrative matter relating to the Pension Paying  office at  Pokhara. Respondent  No.  4,  the Ambassador, was  not subjected  to the contempt proceedings. Respondent No.  5 is  the Military  and Air  Attache of  the Indian Embassy  at Kathmandu and is in charge of the general administration of  the military  wing. Apart  from  offering unconditional apology,  he has indicated that Dubey has been restored  to   service  and   he  has   been  provided  with residential accommodation  and for  the period he was out of possession  of  the  official  residence,  rent  by  way  of compensation has already been ordered to be paid to him.      It is  clear from the orders made by this Court and the facts appearing  on the  record that  the responsibility for implementation of the Court’s orders in regard to petitioner No. 9 squarely rested with respondent No. 6, the officer-in- Charge of  the Pension  Paying office. He, in his affidavit, has stated  that Dubey was dispossessed from his residential accommodation on 14th August, 1987, and by then the order of this Court  dated 7th  August, 1987 had not been received by him. That  accommodation was  given to  one Krishna Bahadur. Later Dubey  has been  restored to service, given possession of a  similar accommodation  as the  one from  which he  was displaced and  with a view to giving effect to the spirit of the order  of this  Court, the rent which Dubey had paid for private accommodation has been decided to 285 be borne  out of  Government account. His affidavit explains the delay in implementation thus: A                "There has  been delay  in implementation  of           the orders  of this  Hon’ble Court due to delay in           communication, administrative  bottlenecks and for           security reasons. It is further stated that we had           no intention  to flout  or disobey  the orders  of           this Hon’ble  Court but for the reasons beyond our           control,  the   same  could   not  be  implemented           notwithstanding  the   fact  that   we   had   all           intentions to  implement the  same  in  the  right           earnest. The  orders have  since been implemented,           the petitioner  has since been reinstated and also           given accommodation. The delay in implementing the           same may  kindly be condoned and we be excused for           such  delay   for  which   we  have   tendered  an           unconditional  apology   at  the  outset  of  this           affidavit."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    There is  some material  which, if probed into further, might have  established that respondent No. 6 had the notice of the  order of this Court before physical dispossession of Dubey was  effected. As already noticed, there is allegation of adoption of an attitude of resentment by respondent No. 6 or for  the matter of that the local officers, when the writ petition  was   filed  in  this  Court.  That  backdrop,  as contended by  counsel for  the petitioners, perhaps could be taken to  supply the  motive for the delay in complying with the directions  of this  Court. We  have not  considered  it expedient to probe into the matter further on account of the fact  that  there  has  been  compliance  and  each  of  the respondents has tendered unqualified apology.      We would  part with the matter by recording our serious concern and  disapproval of  the growing  conduct of parties and public officers in particular of ignoring the directions of   the   Courts   and   the   multiplying   instances   of confrontation. The  Court, including the apex one, is a part of the State and is a built-in mechanism of the Constitution to  administer   justice  in   accordance  with   law.   For discharging that  duty,  the  Court  has  got  to  adopt  an attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation brought before it for adjudication. The manner of functioning of  the Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be  dispassionate, objective  and analytical.  The Judges who preside  over these  courts do  not act  with a sense of superiority; nor  do they  look  down  upon  others  in  the community. In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose  for which  the courts  are established  is duly served, it  is necessary  that everyone within the framework of the 286 Rule of  Law must accept the system, render due obedience to orders made  and in  the event of failure of compliance, the rod of  justice must  descend down  to punish.  We hope  and trust  that   everyone  within   the  system  realises  this situation  and   does   not   unnecessarily   get   into   a confrontation.      The apologies  tendered by the respondents are accepted and the  contempt notice  is discharged. Respondent No. 6 is directed  to  pay  to  the  petitioners  the  costs  of  the proceedings which are assessed at Rs.2,000 within one month. N.P.V.                             Petition disposed of 287