BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 10-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN, B.C. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,..~ 
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
NOVEMBER IO, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
B 
'~ 
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 2-0rder for mainte-
-
nance of status quo as in the High Court-Passed by Supreme Court-
Suppression of the order from the High Court and obtaining of another 
order-Whether amounts to contempt-Scope and effect of status quo 
\ 
order. 
c 
Words & Phrases: 'Status quo'-Meaning of. 
It was alleged, in the petition for initiating proceedings for con-
tempt, that despite the fact that this Court passed an order on 19.12.86 
directing maintenance of 'status quo as in the High Court' in the pre-
D 
sence of the counsel for respondent No. 4 on December 22, 1986 respon-
dent No. 4 and his son filed a miscellaneous petition before the High 
Court, deliberately and wilfully suppressing from it the fact that this· 
y 
Court had directed maintenance of status quo, and obtained an order 
dated January 3, 1987 in their favour, and had thus wilfully and 
flagrantly disobeyed and violated the status quo order of this Court. 
E 
--
This Court on September 23, 1987 vacated the aforesaid order of 
the High Court and restrained respondent No. 4 and his son and their 
agents and servants from lifting sludge/slurry from the lands in ques-
tion. This Court was of the view that there was no contempt. 
F 
' ,..... 
Giving reasons for its decision, 
HELD: The expression 'status quo' is undoubtedly a term of 
ambiguity and at times gives rise to doubt and difficulty. According 
to the . ordinary legal connotation the term implies existing state of 
things at any given point of time. The qualifying words 'as in the G 
_,, 
High Court' clearly limit the scope and effect of the status quo 
order. [872F -GI 
In the present case, the High Court determined only one question, 
namely, that slurry was not coal or mineral. The impugned judgment 
does not adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. It is, therefore, 
H 
869 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) 1 S.C.R. 
A obvious that status quo as in the High Court cannot mean anything else 
T ., 
except status quo as existing when the matter was pending in the High 
B 
Court before the judgment was delivered. Both the parties understood 
the scope and effect of the status quo order as meaning the state of 
things existing while the writ petition was still pending i.e. till the 
delivery of the judgment by the High Court. [872G-H; 873A-B) 
No case for contempt is made out on the plain terms of the status 
quo order. The parties were relegated back to the position that obtained 
while the writ petition was pending. They were, therefore, subject to 
the order passed by the High Court dated January 15, 1985. [873C-D] 
The conduct of respondent No. 4 for having approached the High 
C Court and obtained the impugned order by suppressing the fact that 
this Court had passed the status quo order, is highly deprecated. The 
proper course for him was to have approached this Court for clarifica-
tion, if he had any doubt as to the meaning and effect of the status quo 
order. [873C) 
D 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition 
No. 4673 of 1987. (Jn C.A. No. 4521of1986). 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1985 of the Patna 
High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1133 of 1984. 
L.N. Sinha and M.L. Verma for the Petitioner. 
S.N. Kacker, S.B. Upadhyay, M.M. Kashyap and Smt. Asha 
Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
This is an application made by the appellant for initiating pro-
ceedings for contempt against respondent no. 4 Ram Nath Singh and 
G his son Vijendra Singh. It is alleged that despite the fact that this Court 
had on 19th December 1986 after hearing learned counsel for the 
parties granted special leave and also passed an order directing 
maintenance of status quo as in the High Court in the presence of 
learned counsel for respondent no. 4, three days after i.e. on 22nd 
December, 1986 respondent no. 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son 
H Vjjendra Singh filed a criminal miscellaneous petition no. 4841/86 (R) 
-
y_ 
BHARAT COKING COAL v. STATE OF BIHAR 
871 
•'y" 
before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court alleging inter alia 
A 
that respondent no. 4 had the right to collect slurry, deliberately and 
wilfully suppressed from the High Court the fact that this Court had 
f 
directed maintenance of status quo, and thereby obtained an order 
< 
from the High Court dated 3rd January, 1987 in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.