LexALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION versus RAGHABENDRA SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 apology- Liquor 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 order- In 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. officials- F 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 respondent- authorities 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 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.