HOW CRUCIAL INTENT IS IN CASES OF CONTEMPT? THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE APPEAL, OVERTURNING THE HIGH COURT'S RULING
Category: JUDGEMENT REVIEW
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The brief facts about these consequential civil appeals, stem from the decision made by the High Court of the State of Telangana on December 30, 2022, in Contempt Case No. 776/2022, whereby the Appellants, who are the Managing Director, the Chairman, and the General Manager (Human Resources) of the business, NTPC Ltd., have been ordered to simple imprisonment for two months along with a Rs. fine. 2,000, by accepting the respondents' contempt case
in this instance, that the respondent in this case and some other persons are the absolute owners of the land which is situated at different villages in Ramagundan Madal of Karimnagar District.
That prior to 1980, the same piece of land was acquired by NTPC and an award is also passed foe the same. It was suggested that the NTPC hire the land oustees as Junior Mazdoor. The NTPC released employment notification number 2 of 2015 on May 15, 2015, requesting the names of eligible land oustees to be provided for 25 Junior Mazdoor positions within the NTPC.
That a W.P. No.26043/2016 was filed by an aggrieved land oustee stating the same hiring was set aside followed by another round of litigation as NTPC recruited junior mazdoors through a notification (No. 01 of 2017) dated March 9, 2017, which was also contested in court. In 3 W.A.No.277 of 2020, the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana ordered NTPC to complete the recruitment process in accordance with Notification No.01 of 2017 within two months of the said judgment date of 17.12.2021.
That in accordance with the High Court's order dated 17.12.2021, the Employment Notification No.01 of 2017 dated 09.03.2017 was cancelled and a new recruitment notification bearing No.1 of 2022 was issued, starting the recruitment process.
That in 2022, as a response to the appellants' wilful disregard for the orders of the High Court dated December 17, 2021, the Respondents filed a Contempt Petition with No. 776 of 2022, requesting that the appellants be found in contempt of court. The High Court allowed the contempt case and ordered the appellants to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and face simple imprisonment for two (02) months, despite their full knowledge of the implications of the judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch. The appellants were found to have engaged in deliberate and wilful laches, omissions, and commissions.
The appellant filled the present appeals regarding the same impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Telangana in the Contempt Petition no. 776 of 2022.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
That whether the appellant is liable for the contempt, in accordance with the judgment passed by the High Court of Telangana in the Contempt Petition No. 776 of 2022.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant, learned Solicitor General, stated that since there was obviously no intentional or deliberate disobedience of the order issued by the High Court on December 17, 2021, the High Court should have accepted the appellants' unconditional apology.
The Solicitor General stated that the appointment process was carried out and that a select list had been created in accordance with the High Court's directives to complete the recruitment process in its entirety within two months of that day and to issue the ensuing appointment orders. Due to the Contempt Petition that the respondents in this case filed, the appointment orders have only been issued provisionally.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Learned counsel Mr. Arun K. Sinha stated the respondents were the land oustees, whose names were previously on the 2015 select list and who are eligible to be considered for appointment. But since no appointments were made, they were forced to submit the Contempt Petition. However, he stated that the High Court may take into consideration the reasons it did not accept the appellants' unconditional apology and may issue the necessary orders in the Contempt Petition. He added that the respondents' case for an appointment to the appellants' company may be taken into consideration by the appellants.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Court finds that there has not been "deliberate and wilful" disobedience of the High Court's orders after hearing the learned Solicitor General for the appellants and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. This is in light of the information extracted above and the High Court's order dated 17.12.2021. Indeed, the appellants in this case had also submitted an unconditional apology based on an alleged breach of the High Court's order dated 17.12.2021. Even in the event that the High Court determined that the appellants had disobeyed the court's order with purpose and will, it might have taken into account the aforementioned unconditional apology.
DECISION MADE
Given the case's facts and circumstances, the hon'ble find that it is appropriate to accept the appellants' complete apology in this case and thereby set aside the fine of Rs. 2000 and the simple imprisonment of 2 months that was imposed.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: YASH BHARDWAJ
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
