Mere disobedience or breach of the Court’s order by the person is not sufficient to constitute civil contempt.: Manipur High Court
In order to exercise its power to punish the contemnor the Court has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the Court’s order as upheld by the High Court of Manipur through the learned bench led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice MV Muralidaran in the case of Shri Hawaibam Pradeep Kumar Singh v. Shri Akoijam Sanatomba Singh and Ors. (MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 101 of 2021 [Ref:- Cont.Cas(C) No. 58 of 2021]) The brief facts of the case are that this Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the applicant/contemnor seeking to close the Contempt Case (C) No.58 of 2021 since the order dated 22.04.2021 passed in 2016 and 2018 has been complied with. The applicant herein is the third respondent in the Contempt Case No.58 of 2021. Mr. Romesh, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that by the common order dated 22.4.2021, this Court disposed by directing the Thoubal Municipal Council to consider the case of the respondents herein for allotment of shops in the 15 lying vacant shops in the New Thoubal Market by giving personal opportunity to the respondents without affecting the allotment of the respondents 5 to 8 in W.P.(C) No.415 of 2018 and the said exercise was directed to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. The order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 has not been complied with, Contempt Case No.58 of 2021 came to be filed by the respondents on 05.7.2021. He would submit that pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 22.4.2021, the applicant has issued an order dated 8.7.2021 and that challenging the order dated 8.7.2021, W.P.(C) No.493 of 2021 came to be filed on 6.8.2021 by the respondents. The learned counsel submitted that since the order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 has been duly complied with by the applicant, the Contempt Case No.58 of 2021 is to be closed. Per contra, Mr. Juno Rahman, the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that the contempt petition cannot be closed on the ground that the respondents have filed W.P.(C) No.493 of 2021 challenging the order dated 8.7.2021 and that the action and conduct of the contemnors amounts to willful and deliberate violation of the common order dated 22.4.2021. After the perusal of the facts and arguments by the respective parties, the Hon’ble Court held, “In the instant case, there is no proof to show that the contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the Court’s order. In fact, the applicant being the contemnor has passed the order on 8.7.2021. Though the original order is dated 22.4.2021 and eight weeks’ time has been granted to the contemnors to consider the claim of the respondents herein and the compliance order came to be passed only on 8.7.2021 beyond the eight weeks period, the short delay in passing the order dated 8.7.2021 cannot go against the applicant/contemnor. Since the order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 has been substantially complied with, the question of contempt will not lie. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order dated 22.4.2021 has been duly complied with by the applicant and resultantly, Contempt Case No.58 of 2021 is liable to be closed as substantial compliance has taken place.”
P a g e | 1 Versus Applicant IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 Shri Hawaibam Pradeep Kumar Singh aged about 37 years Executive Officer Thoubal Municipal Council Thoubal Office at Thoubal Wangmataba P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Thoubal District Manipur 795138. 1. Shri Akoijam Sanatomba Singh aged about 58 years S o Ak. Heramot Singh of Thoubal Wangmataba P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Thoubal District Manipur 795138. 2. Shri Akoijam Yaimachouba @ Yaimachou Singh aged about 56 years S o Ak. Thambal Singh of Thoubal Wangmataba P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Thoubal District Manipur 795138. 3. Smt. Akoijam Manitombi Devi aged about 51 years W o Ak. Somen Singh of Thoubal Wangmataba P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Thoubal District Manipur 795138. 4. Shri Akoijam Somen Singh aged about 55 years Ak. Chaoba Singh of Thoubal Wangmataba P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Thoubal District Manipur 795138. Respondents MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 2 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN For the Applicant Mr. Y. Romesh Adv. For the respondents Mr. Juno Rahman Advocate. Date of Hearing & Reserving Judgment & Order Date of Judgment & Order JUDGMENT & ORDER This Miscellaneous Case has been filed by applicant contemnor seeking to close the Contempt CaseNo.58 of 2021 since the order dated 22.04.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.466 of 2016 with W.P.(C) Nos.4916 and 4118 has been complied with. 2. The applicant herein is the third respondent in the Contempt Case No.521. 3. I heard Mr. Y. Romesh the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Juno Rahman the learned counsel for the MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 3 4. Mr. Romesh the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that by the common order dated 22.4.2021 this Court disposed of W.P.(C) Nos.466 4916 and 4118 by directing the Thoubal Municipal Council through the Executive Officer and the Administrator Thoubal Government of Manipur to consider the case of the respondents herein for allotment of shops in the 15 lying vacant shops in the New Thoubal Market by giving personal opportunity to the respondents without affecting the allotment of the respondents 5 to 8 in W.P.(C) No.415 of 2018 and the said exercise was directed to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that alleging that the order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 has not been complied with Contempt Case No.521 came to be filed by the respondents on 05.7.2021. He would submit that pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 22.4.2021 the applicant has issued an order dated 8.7.2021 and that challenging the order dated 8.7.2021 W.P.(C) No.493 of 2021 came to be filed on 6.8.2021 by the respondents. The learned counsel submitted that since the order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 has been duly complied with by the applicant the Contempt Case No.521 is to be closed. MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 4 6. Per contra Mr. Juno Rahman the learned counsel for the respondents writ petitioners submitted that the contempt petition cannot be closed on the ground that the respondents have filed W.P.(C) No.4921 challenging the order dated 8.7.2021 and that the action and conduct of the contemnors amounts to willful and deliberate violation of the common order dated 22.4.2021. To support his case Mr. Juno Rahman produced the following two judgments: 1) 1995 SuppSCC 465 Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sachidanand Dass & Anr.) 2) 1992) 4 SCC 167 8. This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 9. By the common order dated 22.4.2021 W.P.(C) Nos.466 4916 and 4118 with M.C.(WP) Nos.100 65 98 and 99 of 2021 are disposed by this Court. The operative portion of the order reads thus: MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 5 “[9] Considering the arguments advanced by both the counsels this Court to pass appropriate orders by directing the Respondent Nos.4 and 9 in all the three Misc. Cases in MC W.P.(C)] Nos.98 99 and 1021 no prejudice would be caused to the Govt. Respondents as well as the private Respondent Nos.5 to 8. Hence without going into the merits and demerits of the case of the petitioners since the petitioners are not pressed the prayers sought for in all the three writ petitions I am inclined to pass the following orders: a) all the three writ petitions in W.P.(C) Nos.466 of 2016 415 of 2018 and 499 of 2016 are disposed of. b) Respondent No.4 by namely the Thoubal Municipal Council Toubal through the Executive Officer E.O) Thoubal Municipal CouncilThoubal Manipur and Respondent No.9 by namely Administrator Thoubal Government of Manipur Office at Thoubal Athokpam P.O. P.S. Thoubal Thoubal District Manipur in MC[W.P.(C)] Nos.98 99 and 100 of 2021 are directed to consider the case of all the in respect of claim of petitioners for allotment of shops in the 15 MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 6 fifteen) lying vacant shops in the New Thoubal Market under the control of Thoubal Municipal Council by giving personal the petitioners without affecting the allotment of the Respondent Nos.5 to 8 in W.P.(C) No.4118. c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11] Accordingly all these writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.4916 4118 and 466 of 2016 and MC[WP(C)]Nos.65 98 99 and 100 of 2021 are disposed of. The Misc. Case in M.C.No.621 is closed.” 10. Alleging that the respondents in the writ petitions have willfully disobeyed the order dated 22.4.2021 the respondents herein have filed Contempt Case No.521 on 05.7.2021. It is seen that on 24.5.2021 the learned counsel for the respondents issued notice to the contemnors for immediate compliance of the order dated 22.4.2021. The end paragraph of the said notice dated 24.5.2021 reads as under: “In the facts and circumstances stated above I hereby give you this legal notice informing you that the claim of the humble petitioners be MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 7 consider for allotment of shops from amongst the 9vacant shops lying in the New Thoubal in lieu of the shops that were acquired for construction of the New Thoubal Market and also in view of the series of orders passed by the Hon ble High Court of Manipur and judgment and order dated 22 04 2021 passed in WP No. 4616 4118 and 4916 failing which I have no alternative but to file the Contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 22 04 2021 passed in WP No. 4616 4118 and 4916 above referred before the Hon ble High Court to meet the ends of justice and to protect the rule of law.” 11. It appears that two days after the filing of the Contempt Case the contemnor herein issued an order dated 8.7.2021. The operative portion of the order dated 8.7.2021 reads as under: “Now in view of the latter dated 05 07 2021 vide No. 8 Tbl MUC Misc 2016 along with the related documents submitted by the Revenue Officer Thoubal Municipal Council it is hereby issued this order that the Thoubal Municipal Council would not be able to allot shops to Shri Akoljam Sanatomba MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 8 Singh Smt. Akojam Manitombi Devi and Shri Akoljam Yaimachou @Yaimachou Singh as the 8 eight) shops that they have claimed in their counsel s legal notice dated 24 05 2021 as the vacant shops are already occupied by the above mentioned shop occupants occupiers. In other words there are no vacant shops in the New Thoubal Market as claimed by the petitioners in their counsel s legal notice dated 24 04 2021 12. Admittedly the order dated 8.7.2021 passed by the contemnor is in compliance with the order dated 22.4.2021 passed in the writ petitions. That apart challenging the order dated 8.7.2021 the respondents herein have also filed W.P.(C) No.493 of 2021 and the same is pending. 13. According to the respondents in W.P.(C) No.4921 this Court granted interim stay on 6.8.2021 and therefore the question of compliance will not arise and the Contempt Case need not be closed. Admittedly the respondents herein have not filed any appeal against the order dated 22.4.2021 passed in the writ petitions. At this juncture one thing needs to be mentioned that the original order is dated 22.4.2021 and in the said order this Court has given eight weeks time to consider the case of the respondents herein. However within one MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 9 month and two days the respondents herein issued a legal notice to the alleged contemnors seeking to consider for allotment of shops from amongst the nine vacant shops lying in the New Thoubal Market in lieu of the shops that were acquired for construction of the New Thoubal Market failing which Contempt Petition will be filed for the willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 22.4.2021. After issuance of the said legal notice on 5.7.2021 the respondents herein filed the Contempt Case. 14. As stated supra since the order dated 8.7.2021 issued by the applicant is in compliance with the order dated 22.4.2021 the applicant was right in contending that the order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 passed in the writ petitions has been duly complied with. 15. Mere disobedience or breach of the Court’s order by the person is not sufficient to constitute civil contempt. Such a disobedience or breach must be willful deliberate and intentional. In order to exercise its power to punish the contemnor the Court has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully deliberately and intentionally violated the Court’s order. MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 10 16. No Court including the Contempt Court is entitled to take trivialities and technicalities into account while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceeding is taken. 17. Where the order has been substantially complied with and a reasonable explanation has been provided for the delay in compliance with the order the contempt will not lie as the violation is not willful and 18. In the instant case there is no proof to show that the contemnor has willfully deliberately and intentionally violated the Court’s order. In fact the applicant being the contemnor has passed the order on 8.7.2021. Though the original order is dated 22.4.2021 and eight weeks time has been granted to the contemnors to consider the claim of the respondents herein and the compliance order came to be passed only on 8.7.2021 beyond the eight weeks period the short delay in passing the order dated 8.7.2021 cannot go against the applicant contemnor. Since the order of this Court dated 22.4.2021 has been substantially complied with the question of contempt will not lie. 19. As stated supra challenging the order dated 8.7.2021 the respondents herein have filed W.P.(C) No.4921 and the same is pending and it is for the respondents to pursue the said writ petition. MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 11 The interim order if any passed in the said writ petition will have no bearing in keeping the Contempt Case pending. That apart the veracity and the legality of passing the order dated 8.7.2021 canvassed by the respondents cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the Contempt Cas(C) No. 521 produced the above two judgments 1) 1995 SuppSCC 465 Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sachidanand Dass & Anr.) and 2)4 SCC 167and the said judgments are not applicable to this case since the case in hand the writ petition order was not challenged by either the petitioner in the contempt petition or the respondents but the petitioner in contempt petition alone has challenged the subsequent compliance order dated 08.07.2021 by way of fresh writ petition in WP(C) No. 4921 and obtained an order of interim stay. Therefore both these judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Contempt Cas(C) No. 521 are not applicable to the present MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021. 21. Therefore this Court is of the view that the order dated 22.4.2021 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.466 4916 and 4118 has been duly complied with by the applicant and resultantly the MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 P a g e | 12 Contempt Case No.58 of 2021 is liable to be closed as substantial compliance has taken place. 22. In the result M.C.(Cont. Case) No.1021 is allowed and consequently the Contempt Case No.521 is closed. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp e mail. FR NFR Sushil MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 1021 Ref: Cont.Cas(C) No. 521 