# ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION I v. RAGHABENDRA SINGH AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2007] 3 S.C.R. 816
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007-03-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1246 of2007
- **Bench:** Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Al Tamas Kabir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/all-bengal-excise-licensees-association-i-v-raghabendra-singh-and-ors-22649
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act, 1971: Section 2.
c
Contempt of court-Deliberate and willful-Unqualified apologyLiquor license-Grant of-A Single Judge of the High Court passed an
interim order to the effect that the Govt. officials would be at liberty to
process the applications in respect of grant of licenses for excise shops but
no final selection in respect of such shops shall be made without obtaining
specific leave of the Court-The High Court made it clear that the Govt.
D officials would not hold any lottery for the purpose of final selection of the
excise shops in question without obtaining fiirther orders from the High
Court-The said interim order was passed after hearing and in the presence
of the advocate for the Govt. officials and was still continuing-The said
order was communicated by the appellant's advocate vide his letter enclosing
E
therewith the Xerox copies of the signed copies of the said dictated orderIn spite of the full knowledge about the said orders, the Govt. officials caused
an advertisement published in the newspapers for holding lottery for final
selection of excise shops-Pursuant to the said advertisement, a lottery had
been held for the purpose of final selection of the excise shops-The High
Court dismissed the contempt petition filed against the Govt. officialsF Correctness of-Held: The Single Judge for the purpose of upholding the
majesty of law and the sanctity of the solemn order of the court of law should
~
have set aside the lottery and should not have allowed the Govt. officials to
gain a wrongful advantage thereby-A party to the litigation cannot be
allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim
G order and escape the consequences thereof by pleading misunderstanding
and thereafter retain the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the
Court-The act of the Govt. officials is not only willfid but also deliberate
and contumacious-Hence, the Govt. officials are guilty of contempt of Court
~
and their conduct is censured
H
8I6
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATIO~ •·. RAGHABENDRA SINGH
8 J 7
.. 'i
The appellant was an Association of Excise Licensees including the A
country spirit shop owners. A Single Judge of the High Court passed an
interim order to the effect that the respondent-authorities would be at liberty
to process the applications in respect of grant of licenses for excise shops
but no final selection in respect of such shops shall be made without obtaining
specific leave of the Court. The High Court made it clear that the respondentauthorities would not hold any lottery for the purpose of final selection of the B
excise shops in question without obtaining further orders from the High Court.
\
The said interim order was passed after hearing and in the presence of the
advocate for the respondents and was still continuing.
The said order was communicated by the appellant's advocate vide his C
letter enclosing therewith the Xerox copies of the signed copies of the said
dictated order. In spite of the full knowledge about the said orders, the
respondents caused an advertisement published in the newspapers for holding
lottery for final selection of excise shops.
Pursuant to the said advertisement, a lottery had been held for the D
purpose of final selection of the excise shops. The appellant filed a contempt
petition against the respondents before the High Court on the ground that
the respondents had deliberately and willfully violated the orders passed by
the High Court and were thus guilty of the contempt of Court. The High Court
dismissed the contempt petition. Hence the appeal.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I. It is not in dispute that an injunction order was passed and on
subsequent extension is still subsisting. Respondents Nos. 1-4 admittedly are
highly qualified and highly placed government officials. Admittedly, by the
advocate's letter, it was pointed out to them that the injunction order and its F
subsequent ext~'!_sions are still subsisting.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,927 of 85,829. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39927 for what follows._

A
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION
I ..
v.
RAGHABENDRA SINGH AND ORS.
MARCH 9, 2007
B
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]
Contempt of Court Act, 1971: Section 2.
c
Contempt of court-Deliberate and willful-Unqualified apologyLiquor license-Grant of-A Single Judge of the High Court passed an
interim order to the effect that the Govt. officials would be at liberty to
process the applications in respect of grant of licenses for excise shops but
no final selection in respect of such shops shall be made without obtaining
specific leave of the Court-The High Court made it clear that the Govt.
D officials would not hold any lottery for the purpose of final selection of the
excise shops in question without obtaining fiirther orders from the High
Court-The said interim order was passed after hearing and in the presence
of the advocate for the Govt. officials and was still continuing-The said
order was communicated by the appellant's advocate vide his letter enclosing
E
therewith the Xerox copies of the signed copies of the said dictated orderIn spite of the full knowledge about the said orders, the Govt. officials caused
an advertisement published in the newspapers for holding lottery for final
selection of excise shops-Pursuant to the said advertisement, a lottery had
been held for the purpose of final selection of the excise shops-The High
Court dismissed the contempt petition filed against the Govt. officialsF Correctness of-Held: The Single Judge for the purpose of upholding the
majesty of law and the sanctity of the solemn order of the court of law should
~
have set aside the lottery and should not have allowed the Govt. officials to
gain a wrongful advantage thereby-A party to the litigation cannot be
allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim
G order and escape the consequences thereof by pleading misunderstanding
and thereafter retain the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the
Court-The act of the Govt. officials is not only willfid but also deliberate
and contumacious-Hence, the Govt. officials are guilty of contempt of Court
~
and their conduct is censured
H
8I6
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATIO~ •·. RAGHABENDRA SINGH
8 J 7
.. 'i
The appellant was an Association of Excise Licensees including the A
country spirit shop owners. A Single Judge of the High Court passed an
interim order to the effect that the respondent-authorities would be at liberty
to process the applications in respect of grant of licenses for excise shops
but no final selection in respect of such shops shall be made without obtaining
specific leave of the Court. The High Court made it clear that the respondentauthorities would not hold any lottery for the purpose of final selection of the B
excise shops in question without obtaining further orders from the High Court.
\
The said interim order was passed after hearing and in the presence of the
advocate for the respondents and was still continuing.
The said order was communicated by the appellant's advocate vide his C
letter enclosing therewith the Xerox copies of the signed copies of the said
dictated order. In spite of the full knowledge about the said orders, the
respondents caused an advertisement published in the newspapers for holding
lottery for final selection of excise shops.
Pursuant to the said advertisement, a lottery had been held for the D
purpose of final selection of the excise shops. The appellant filed a contempt
petition against the respondents before the High Court on the ground that
the respondents had deliberately and willfully violated the orders passed by
the High Court and were thus guilty of the contempt of Court. The High Court
dismissed the contempt petition. Hence the appeal.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I. It is not in dispute that an injunction order was passed and on
subsequent extension is still subsisting. Respondents Nos. 1-4 admittedly are
highly qualified and highly placed government officials. Admittedly, by the
advocate's letter, it was pointed out to them that the injunction order and its F
subsequent ext~'!_sions are still subsisting. They have also acknowledged the
receipt of the said communication. Under such circumstances, the High Court
is not justified in holding that the highly qualified and well placed government
officials did not understand the implication and/or consequence of the
prohibitory order in an independent proceeding and by sheer misconception G
thought that there is no bar to issue excise licenses as was held by the Single
Judge in the impugned order. This Court can only say it is rather unfortunate
that such officers who are not capable of or not able to understand the
implication of the prohibitory orders passed by the High Court should be
allowed to hold such high offices. During the course of the hearing of the
contempt application, the matter was adjourned by the High Court to enable H
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A the respondents to consider whether the contemnors were prepared to cancel
the lottery held in violation of the Court's orders and on such adjourned date,
!
•
the contemnors did not agree to cancel the lottery. Under such circumstal)ces,
the plea of mistake of understanding the order cannot at all be accepted.
Likewise, the High Court also was not justified in not directing the contemnors
to cancel the lottery held in violation of the solemn orders passed by the very
B same judge and in view of the clear finding of the Court that they had acted in
clear violation of the said interim order made by the High Court.
[Para 231 [831-B, C, D, E, Fl
2. Even assuming that there was any scope for bona fide
misunderstanding on the part of the respondents, once it was found that the
C respondents had disobeyed the specific order passed earlier by the Court, the
High Court should have directed the contemnors to undo the wrong committed
by them which was done in clear breach of the order of the Court by restoring
the status quo ante by canceling the lottery wrongfully held by them. The
Single Judge found that the respondents-contemnors had held the lottery in
D violation of the Court's order and the results of the said lottery should not be
permitted to take effect and should be treated as unlawful and invalid for the
purpose of grant of license. The Single Judge for the purpose of upholding
the majesty of law and the sanctity of the solemn order of the court of law
.,._
which cannot be violated by the executive authority either deliberately or
unwittingly should have set aside the lottery and should not have allowed the
E respondents to gain a wrongful advantage thereby. [Para 241 [831-G, HI
3. A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage
by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof.
By pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retaining the said advantage
gained in breach of the order of the Court and the wrong perpetrated by the
F respondents-contemnors in contumacious disregard of the order of the High
Court should not be permitted to hold good. The impugned order passed by
<
the High Court is not sustainable in law and should not be allowed to operate
as a precedent and the wrong perpetrated by the respondents-contemnors in
utter disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold
G good. The High Court has committed a grievous error of law in holding that
failure to understand the implication and consequences of the order passed
by the High Court by highly placed government officers cannot be construed
as an act of contempt. The High Court has failed to understand that the highly
educated and highly placed government officials have competent legal advisors
and it was not open to them to allege and contend that the respondentsH contemnors did not understand the implication of the order. Such officers are
ALL BENGAL EXC'ISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION r. RAGHABENDRA SINGH
819
~
~
required to be dealt with effectively to uphold the dignity of the High CQurt A
and the efficiency of the system itself. The High Court committed a grave
error of law by not taking into consideration the most important fact that in
the course of the hearing of the contempt application the matter was adjourned
in order to enable the contemnor to consider whether they were prepared to
cancel the lottery and, on the adjourned date, the respondents did not agree to
cancel the lottery. In such view of the matter, the significant stand being the B
plea of mistake of understanding cannot prevail. The High Court in that view
•
of the matter committed a grave miscarriage of justice by not taking into
consideration another most important fact that if actually the lottery was held
by mistake or by misunderstanding of the orders, then the respondents would
have immediately rectified it and would have cancelled the lottery but in the C
instant case, instead of canceling the lottery, the respondents have justified
their conduct from which the determined declination of obeying the order is
Clearly proved. In other words, if there was a doubt about the implication of
the order of the Court, the respondents should have approached the Court
and should have clarified their alleged confusion. But in the instant case, the
D
respondents have not only violated the order but when the contempt application
was moved and opportunity was given by the Court to cancel the lottery they
).
refused to cancel the said lottery from which it is proved that they deliberately
held the lottery in clear violation of the order passed by the High Court having
regard to the admissions made on behalf of the contemnors that there is
violation of the order and also having regard to the Single Judge's own finding E
that "there is no doubt that the alleged contemnor disobeyed the specific
directions passed earlier by this Bench". The High Court should have directed
•
the contemnor to cancel the lottery. The High Court also failed to consider
the effect of the appellant's advocate's letter whereby it was clearly pointed
out about the subsistence of the order and its subsequent extension. By the
said letter, the appellant's advocate categorically pointed out further that in F
spite of the above if the lottery is held or further action is taken for issue of
excise license, the appellant shall be compelled to take legal action.
(Para 25] (832-B, C, D, E, F, G, H; 833-A, B, C(
4. The respondent Nos. 1-4 had deliberately and with malajide motive G
have committed contempt of the High Court in conducting the lottery quite
contrary to the order of injunction passed by the High Court and its subsequent
extensions. When the auction was held, the order passed by the High Court
remains operative at the relevant time. The High Court has miserably failed
in not issuing direction to the contemnors to cancel the lottery held in violation
of the solemn order passed by the High Court. In view of the clear finding of H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A the Court that the respondent had acted in clear violation of the order made
by the High Court, it is settled law that a party to the litigation cannot be
I
-.
allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order
and escape the consequences thereof by pleading misunderstanding and
thereafter retain the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court.
Such violations should be put an end with an iron hand. It is not possible to
B accept the argument that the respondents did not understand the implication
and consequences of a prohibitory order passed by the High Court. Their
conduct and the refusal to cancel the order when they were advised to do so
by the High Court during the pendency of the contempt proceedings have
already been explained. The act of the respondents is not only willful but also
C deliberate and contumacious. The High Court committed a grave error of law
by not holding that if there was a doubt about the implication of the order of
the Court, the alleged contemnors should have approached the Court and
should have got their alleged confusion clarified. Likewise, this Court while
ordering notice in the present appeal has clearly directed that no license shall
D
be granted on the basis of the lottery and pursuant to the circular. Even after
the receipt of the order, the respondents have not cancelled the license, but
allowed them to continue the business. The reason is obvious. The respondents
though tendered unqualified apology before the High Court, the High Court
was not inclined to go into the question of apology in view of the observations
made by it in the order impugned in this civil appeal. Even before this Court
E no apology whatsoever was tendered by respondents Nos. 1-4. They are,
therefore, held guilty of willful and deliberate act of contempt As it is evident
that respondent Nos. 1-4 have nQ regard for the orders passed by this Court
and have scant respect for the Court's orders and have deliberately and
willfully and with utter disregard violated all the orders and are thus guilty
of contempt of Court. However, taking a lenient view and taking into
F consideration of the future prospects of the officers - respondents Nos. 1-4
no punishment for their willful violation of the order of the High Court is
being imposed and their unqualified apology filed before the High Court is
accepted. Respondents Nos. 1-4 are severely warned that they shall not involve
themselves or violate the order passed by any Court of law and will not resort
G to the unacceptable plea that the said highly placed and highly qualified
government officials did not understand the implication and/or consequences
of a prohibitory order passed by the Courts of law. They shall not hereafter
also take the plea of inventing an innovative defence that they did not realize
the implications of the order passed by the High Court which remained
operative at the relevant time. f Para 28) (845-G, H; 846-A, B, C, D, E, F, G, HJ
H
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION •·. RAGHABENDRA SINGH
821
~
5. In the instant case, the respondents have conducted the auction quite A
•
contrary to and in violation of an injunction order passed by the High Court.
Courts have held in a catena of decisions that where in violation of a restraint
order or an injunction order against a party, something has been done in
disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right
and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power will
not only be available under Section 151 CPC as available to this Court in B
such a case but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of
justice and public interest. As a matter of judicial policy the Court should
•
guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding
that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the Court's orders.
All the auctions are, therefore, cancelled and respondents Nos. 1-4 are c
directed not to allow the successful bidders to continue the business and shall
stop them forthwith and submit a report to this Court for strict compliance.
It is made clear that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the claim
made by the appellant-Association in the writ petition filed by it before the
High Court which is pending. All the respondents Nos. 1-4 are senior and
experienced officers and must be presumed to know that under the D
constitutional scheme of this country orders of the High Court have to be
obeyed implicitly and that orders of this Court - for that matter any Court
>
should not be trifled with. It has been found hereinabove that they have acted
deliberately to subvert the orders of the High Court evidently. It is equally
necessary to erase an impression which appears to be gaining ground that
the mantra of unconditional apology is a complete answer to violations and E
infractions of the orders of the High Court or of this Court. [Para 29)
(847-B, C, D, E, FJ
Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah, AIR (1975) Mad 323, approved.
6. It is, therefore, held that respondent Nos. 1-4 are guilty of contempt F
">
of Court and their conduct is hereby censured. Though a copy of this order
could be sent which shall form a part of the annual confidential record of
services of each of the said officers, this Court it is refrained from doing so
by taking a lenient view of the matter considering the future prospects of the
officers. As already stated, the officers shall not indulge in any adventurous
act and strictly obey the orders passed by the Courts of law. [Para 29[
G
[847-G[
Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, [ 1999[ 7 SCC 569, Tayabhai M
Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd, [1997[ 3 SCC 443, Eastern
Trust Company v. MaKenzie Mann & Co. Ltd., AIR (1915) PC 106, Anil Ratan
Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, [2002[ 4 SCC 21, All India Regional Rural Bank H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 3 S.C.R.
A Officers Federation v. Govt. of India, 1200213 SCC 554, Ravi S. Naik v. Union
" •
of India, (1994] Supp. 2 SCC 641, Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh, 119951 6
SCC 50, Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co., 1199614
SCC 622, Satyabrata Biswas v. Ka(van Kumar Kisku, (1994[ 2 SCC 266,
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, ( 1995] 4 SCC I and Vidya
Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu O()!mpic Assn. AIR (1991) Mad 323, referred
B to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1246 of2007,
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 29.8.2006 of the High Court
C of Calcutta in CC. No. 62/2005@ WP No. 2248/2004.
K.K. Venugopal, Pradip Ghosh, Joydip Gupta, Deep Narayan Mukherjee
and Chanchal Kumar Ganguli for the Appellant.
Gopal Subramaniam, A.S.G., Bhaskar P, Gupta, P.N, Misra, M.N.
D Krishnamani, J. Kar, Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam, Goodwill lndeevar,
Aman Vachher, Ashutosh Dubey, Krishnandu Sarkar, P.N. Puri, K.V.
Vishwanathan, Abhijit Sengupta, Azim H. Laskar, lndrani and Anand for the
Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. I. Leave granted,
2. The above appeal was filed by All Bengal Licensees Association,
Kolkata against I) Raghabendra Singh, Principal Secretary, Excise Department,
Govt. of West Bengal 2) Tallen Kumar, Excise Commissioner, Excise Department,
F 3) Manoj Kumar Panth, District Magistrate and Collector, 24-Parganas 4)
Parvez Siddique, Addi. District Magistrate, 24-Parganas as contesting
respondents and 5) Pradyut Kumar Saha, General Secretary of All Bengal
Excise Licensees Association, Kolkata as proforma respondent.
G
3, The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 29.08.2006 of the Calcutta High Court passed in CC No. 62 of 2005
arising out of Writ Petition No. 2248 of 2004 whereby a learned Single Judge
of the said High Court has dismissed the application for contempt filed by
the appellant herein. According to the appellant, the contesting respondents
have deliberately and willfully violated and were in utter disregard of the
H solemn order dated 04.01.2005, 19.01.2005 and 20.01.2005 passed by Hon'ble
:
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION•·. RAGHABENDRA SINGH [LAKSHMANAN. J.]
823
..
~
Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay in Writ Petition No. 2248 of 2004 A
filed by All Bengal Excise Licensees Assn. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal &
•
Ors.
The background facts are as under:
4. By an order dated 04.01.2005, a learned Single Judge passed an B
interim order to the effect that the respondent-authorities will be at liberty to
process the applications in respect of grant of licenses for excise shops but
no final selection in respect of such shops shall be made without obtaining
specific leave of the Court. The High Court made it clear that the respondentauthorities will not hold any lottery for the purpose of final selection of the C
excise shops in question without obtaining further orders from the High
Court. The said order dated 04.01.2005 was passed after hearing and in the
presence of the learned advocate for the respondents.
5. The said interim order dated 04.01.2005 was extended by the order
dated 19.01.2005 until further orders by the High Court.
D
6. Thereafter, on 28.01.2005 a learned Single Judge gave direction for
filing the affidavit and the said interim order was further extended until further
orders and the said interim order is still continuing.
7. The said orders dated 04.01.2005, 19.01.2005 and 20.01.2005 were E
communicated by the appellant's advocate's letter dated 15.03.2005 enclosing
therewith the Xerox copies of the signed copies of the said dictated order. In
spite of full knowledge about the said order each of the respondents, in
deliberate and wilful disregard of the orders, caused an advertisement to be
published in the newspapers for holding lottery for final selection of excise
shops to be held on 20.03.2005, 21.03.2005 and 22.03.2005.
F
8. Pursuant to the said advertisement, a lottery has been held on
20.03.2005 for the purpose of final selection of the excise shops. It was
submitted by the appellants that from the act and conduct of the respondents,
it is evident that each of them have no regard for the orders dated 04.01.2005,
19.01.2005.and 20.01.2005 passed by this Court and are deliberately violating G
the said orders passed by the High Court and are thus guilty of contempt of
Court. With these allegations, the appellants filed CC No. 62 of 2005 in the
High Court.
9. The appellant is an Association of Excise Licensees including the H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 3 S.C.R.
A country spirit shop owners. Challenging the policy decisions for issuance of
thousands of excise licenses for opening of new foreign liquor off shop and
country spirit shops in the State of West Bengal in violation of the provisions
of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and the rules framed thereunder, the appellant,
amongst others, moved a writ petition being No. 1982 of 2004 in the High
Court upon notice to the respondents. A copy of the writ petition was also
B filed and marked as annexures in this civil appeal. The High Court (Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Pinaki Chander Ghosh), after hearing the advocates for the parties
on 24.11.2004 passed an order, Inter alia as follows:
c
" ... that the respondent authorities will process the matter but will not
finalise and issue the licence without the leave of the court.
The matter will appear on 9th December, 2004.
I 0. Thereafter, the above-mentioned matter appeared in the list on
09.12.2004 before the very same Judge. The learned Judge, after hearing the
D advocates for the parties, gave a direction to file affidavit and the matter was
directed to appear 4 weeks after vacation and also further directed that the
interim order already passed in the matter will continue.
11. Although there was no direction for making any further advertisement
by the respondent-authorities inviting any application for obtaining excise
E licenses for the new excise shops proposed to be give on or about 20.12.2004,
some of the members of the appellant came to know that an advertisement
was published on 30.11.2004 in the Bengali Daily newspaper Janashakti by the
Excise Department, Government of West Bengal, whereby applications had
been invited for giving new licenses for excise including country spirit shops
within the Districts ofCoochbehar, Jalpaiguri, North 24 Parganas and Hooghly.
F The members also came to know that the Excise Authorities have issued a
memo No. 23-S(XX)/2003-04 3268 (21 E) dated 07.12.2004 and rest to the District
Magistrates and Collectors that there has been a proposal for granting
supplementary country spirit license to the existing tari shop owners. The
appellants made representations before the Excise Authorities and contended
G that since the matter is sub-judice, the respondent authorities cannot publish
the said advertisement on 30.11.2005 and cannot issue the said memo. However,
the Excise Authorities have further decided to hold lottery on 05.01.2005 for
allotment of excise shops including the country spirit and foreign liquor
shops. Immediately after coming to know about the above-mentioned fact, the
North 24 Parganas Excise Licenses Assn. have moved a writ petition on
H 30.12.2004 before the vacation Judge of the High Court. In the said writ
!
..
'•
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION"· RAGHABENDRA SINGH [LAKSHMANAN. J J
825
.,
petition, the appellant No. I herein was made a party respondent. The vacation A
.
Judge did not pass any interim order on the said writ petition against the said
order dated 30.12.2004. The North 24 Parganas Excise Licencees Assn. preferred
an appeal on 30.12.2004 and the Division Bench of the High Court passed an
interim order on 30.12.2004 to the effect that the processing in respect of grant
of issuance of country spirit license will continue but finalization and selection B
will not be made till 3 weeks after the vacation. However, they made it clear
that finalisation include holding of lottery. The said order was restricted to
only in the case of District North 24 Parganas. It was submitted that the
subject-matter of writ petition No. 2248 of 2004 is that during the pendency
of earlier writ petition, the respondent-authorities cannot issue any
advertisement for inviting applications for obtaining new excise license c
including the country spirit shops and foreign liquor shops and cannot hold
any lottery and further they cannot give the effect to the proposal for giving
supplementary excise licensees to the tari shops. It was submitted that in
order to frustrate the order dated 24.11.2004, the respondent authorities have
made an advertisement dated 30.11.2004 and thereby invited applications from
D
intending candidates from obtaining new licenses in respect of 4 Districts and
further making attempt to hold lottery in respect of applications already
received. In spite of repeated requests, the respondents have pre-determined
to hold the lottery on 05.01.2005 which amounts to finalization of the
applications for granting of licenses and they are also trying to issue
supplementary licenses to the existing shop owners.
E
12. On 04.01.2005, the Court passed the following order:-
"Let this matter be listed before the regular bench one week after the
Christmas vacation.
In the meantime, let there be an interim order only to the effect that F
the respondent authorities herein will be at liberty to process the
applications in respect of grant of licence for excise shops but no final
selection in respect of such shops shall be made without obtaining
specific leave of this court.
I also make it clear that the respondent authorities will also not hold G
any lottery for the purpose of final selection of the aforesaiG excise
~
shops in question without obtaining further orders from this court.
All parties are to act on a Xerox signed copy of this dictated order
on the usual undertaking."
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
f2007] 3 S.C.R.
A
13. Again, the interim order was directed to continue until further orders
~
on 28.01.2005. As already stated, the counsel for the appellant communicated
tile said orders and served upon the respondents the Xerox copies of the
signed copies of the order dated 04.01.2005, 19.01.2005 and 20.01.2005. Although
the said interim order dated 04.01.2005 which has been extended from time to
time and is still continuing the respondents in utter disregard caused publication
B of the advertisement of the newspapers for holding lottery for the purpose
of final selection of excise shops in question. It is also pertinent to mention
here that both the Division Bench of the High Court order dated 15.03.2005
in APOT No. 770/2004 vacated the interim order passed in the appeal preferred
by the North 24 Parganas Excise Licensees Assn. but the interim order passed
C in the writ petition being No. 2248 of 2004 is relating to any proposed new
excise licenses through out the State of West Bengal is still continuing.
However, in pursuance to the advertisement, the respondent authorities on
20th March held lottery for final selection of the aforesaid excise shops and
shall hold further lottery on 22nd and 23rd March, 2005. It was, therefore,
submitted that each of the respondents deliberately and willfully and in utter
D disregard to the orders dated 04.01.2005 held lottery for final selection of
excise shops. It is further submitted that the respondents are guilty of deliberate
and willful violation of the 3 orders passed by this Court and committed
contumacious act and in spite of full knowledge about the orders. It was
further submitted that the respondents have scant respect for the orders
E passed -0n all the 3 days in January, 2005 and are deliberately ignoring the
said orders and are thus guilty of contempt of court. According to the
appellant, by the above-mentioned act and conduct of the contemnors/
respondents the majesty and dignity of the High Court have been lowered
down and, therefore, the respondents should be suitably dealt with and
punished. It was also further submitted that having regard to the facts and
F circumstances of the case, the respondents should be restrained from holding
any further lottery and/or from giving any effect and/or further effect of the
lottery already held and/or from taking any further steps for issuance of any
excise license to any person so that the majesty and dignity of the High Court
is not lowered down. In the circumstances, they requested the High Court to
G issue rule nisi calling upon the respondents and each of them to show cause
as to why the respondents and each of them should not be committed to
prison or otherwise be suitably dealt with and/or punished for deliberate and
willful violation and utter disregard of the solemn orders dated 04/19 and
20.01.2005 passed in writ petition No. 2248 of2004.
H
14. In the contempt petition, rule was issued on 23.03.2005. The
ALL BENGAL EX\ISE LICE~SEES ASSOCIATION " RAGHABENDRA SINGH I LAKSHMANAN. J J
827
respondents filed an application praying for discharge of the rule issued in A
the contempt proceedings on 02.05.2005 North 24 Parganas Excise Licensees
Assn. filed SLP (C) No. 10820 of 2005 against the order dated 15.03.2005
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The State of West Bengal
filed an application for vacating the interim order dated 04.01.2005 passed in
writ petition No. 2248 of2004. On 26.07.2005, a learned Single Judge allowed B
the application and vacated the interim order but, however, directed the
Government that they would be free to take steps in issuing license in terms
of the policy but it will be mentioned in the license that it is subject to the
result of the writ petition and further directed that all steps taken for issuing
excise license would abide by the result of the writ petition.
15. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated
26.07.2005, the appellant preferred an appeal being APOT No. 494 of2005 on
10.08.2005. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said appeal and
confinned the order of the single judge dated 26.07.2005. The Appellant's
Assn. preferred SLP No. 17371 of2005 against the said judgment. This Court
c
on 29.08.2005 issued notice with an interim direction to the effect that no D
license be issued in terms of the circular dated 20.01.2004 and the matter was
directed to be listed along with SLP No. 10820 of 2005. Both the SLPs were
dismissed by this Court on 07.11.2005.
16. In the contempt application filed by the appellants, the learned
Advocate General appearing for the contemnors submitted that there is a E
violation of the order passed earlier on 04.01.2005 but the said violation is not
willful as the contemnor wrongly understood the implications of the orders
passed by the High Comt on 04.01.2005 and extended subsequently on 19th
and 20th January, 2005 and also by the Division Bench on 15.03.2005, 18.03.2005
in two other different proceedings. It was further submitted that in order to F
hold a person guilty of contempt of court two things have to be proved.
Firstly, disobedience of the order passed by the court and secondly such
disobedience must be willful. The Advocate-General submitted that in the
instant case there is no willful violation and, therefore, the contempt application
should be dismissed. Some rulings were relied on by the learned Advocate
General in support of his aforesaid contention.
G
17. A learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the opinion that
the contemnors did not understand the implications and consequences of a
prohibitory order passed in an independent proceedings and by sheer misconception thought that there is no bar to issue excise license in view of the H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A orders dated 15.03.2005 and 18.05.2005 and that failure to understand the
;1
•
implications and/or consequences of the order passed by the High Court
cannot be construed as an act of contempt.
18. In the light of the decisions cited, the High Court examined whether
the alleged contemnors have committed any contempt of the High Court.
B While examining so, the High Court has observed as follows:-
c
D
E
F
G
"Undisputedly this Bench on 4th January, 2005 passed an interim
order restraining the alleged contemnors from holding any lottery for.
the purpose of final selection of the excise shops in question without
obtaining further order from this court but the alleged contemnors
published an advertisement in the daily newspaper for holding lottery
for the purpose offinal selection of excise shops in question. Therefore,
there is no doubt that the alleged contemnors have disobeyed the
specific direction passed earlier by th is Bench.
The Division Bench of this Hon'ble court in two different proceedings
passed two separate orders on 15th March, 2005 and 18th March, 2005
respectively whereby and whereunder the alleged contemnors herein
were permitted to grant excise licenses. The alleged contemnors herein /
reasonably understood that the orders passed by the Division Bench
will have overriding effect on the order passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Hon'ble court and thus committed mistake by not
realising the implication of the order passed by this Bench which
remained operative at the relevant time.
If there is any doubt regarding interpretation and/or understanding of
the orders passed by the courts of law, the alleged contemnors are
entitled to have the benefit or advantage of such a doubt, as the act
of contempt must be established beyond all reasonable doubt.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the alleged
contemnors herein willfully and deliberately violated the solemn order
passed by this Bench on 4th January, 2005. Mere disobedience of an
order is not sufficient to hold any one guilty under the Contempt of
Courts Act unless such obedience is deliberate and willful."
The High Court also observed as under:
"Although the alleged contemnors in their respective affidavits have
H
tendered unqualified apology after categorically stating therein that
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION•·. RAGHABENDRA SINGH [LAKSHMANAN. J.j
829
they had no intention to willfully or deliberately violate the order A
passed earlier by this Bench but in view of the observations made
hereinbefore, I am not inclined to go into the question of apology."
19. For the aforementioned reasons, the contempt petition was dismissed
by the High Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the contempt petition, the
appellant preferred the above appeal arising out of SLP No. 15224 of 2006. B
This Court on 18.09 .2006 issued notice and in the meanwhile directed that no
license shall be granted on the basis of the lottery and pursuant to the circular
dated 20.01.2004.
20. We heard Mr. K.K.Venugopal, Mr. L.N. Rao, Mr. Pradip Ghosh, Mr. C
Joydip Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gopal
Subramanium, learned Addi. Solicitor General and Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned
senior counsel for Rl-R4 and Mr. Aman Vachher for R5 and Mr. P.N. Misra
and Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel in I.A. 3 and I.A.4.
21. We dismissed all applications for impleadments/intervention on D
21.02.2007 and heard the arguments of the appellants on merits. Elaborate and
lengthy submissions were made by the respective parties with reference to
the entire pleadings and various orders passed by the High Court and of this
Court and also other annexures and case laws. Learned senior counsel appeared
for the appellant submitted that in view of the finding of the learned Judge
"that there is no doubt that alleged contemnor have disobeyed the specific E
direction passed earlier by this Bench", the learned Judge of the High Court
was not justified in holding that the alleged contemnor committed mistake by
not realising the implication of the order passed by the High Court which
remain operative at the relevant time and on that basis dismissing the
application for contempt without making any order for restoration of the F
status quo ante to undo the mischief caused by such violation of the interim
order. According to the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the impugned
order is not sustainable in law and should not be allowed to operate as a
precedent and the wrong perpetrated by the respondent/contemnors in
contumacious disregard of the orders of the High Court should not be
permitted to hold. Likewise, the High Court also committed a grievous error G
of law in holding that the alleged contemnors did not understand the implication
and consequences of a prohibitory order passed in an independent
proceedings and by sheer mis-conception thought that there is no bar to
issue excise licenses in view of the order dated 15.03.2005 and 18.03.2005 by
two different Division Benches of the High Court. In support of their H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 3 S.C.R.
A contention, they cited the following rulings:
(1). Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1999)
1sec569
(2) Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries
B
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., [ 1997) 3 sec 443
c
(3) Eastern Trust Company v. MaKen:ie Mann & Co., ltd., AIR
( 1915) Privy Council 106
(4) Anil Rotan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., (2002] 4 SCC
2I
(5) All India Regional Rural Bank Officers Federation & Ors. v.
Govt. of India and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 554
(6) Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) Supp 2 SCC 641
D
(7) Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Harbans Singh and Ors., [1995) 6 SCC 50
(8) T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,
[1995) 4 sec 1
E
(9) Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Assn. & Anr., AIR
(1991) Madras 323
(10) Century Flour Mills ltd. v. S. Suppiah and Ors., AIR (1975)
Madras 270
22. Mr. Gopal Subramanium and Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta appearing for the
contesting respondent Nos. 1-4 reiterated the same contentions which have
F been urged before the High Court and since the learned single Judge clearly
found that there was no willful and deliberate violation of the order of the
learned Single Judge pursuing the same in the further appeal does not arise
and inasmuch as it was held that there was no deliberate and willful violation
as such, this Court may not issue direction of setting aside the lottery already
G held. It was also denied that lottery was held in breach of the interim orders
passed as alleged or at all. On the contrary, the learned single Judge held that
there was no willful and deliberate violation of the order. It was further
submitted that the entire judgment of the single Judge is required to be read
and not in bits and pieces and that it would appear from the judgment that
the single Judge has unequivocally held that there was no deliberate and
H willful violation of the order and thus has rightly dismissed the contempt
<
...
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSO\IA TIO/'<' RAGHABE1'DRA SINGH [LAKSHM·\NAN. J.]
83 J
application.
A
23.