DR. U. N. BORA, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS. versus ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 26-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 484
484
DR. U.N. BORA, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS.
v.
ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1967 of 2009)
OCTOBER 26, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Assam Agricultural Produce
Market Act, 1972 – s.21 – Levy of cess on the agricultural produce
bought or sold in the notified market area – Deeming fiction – Writ
petitions filed by respondent no.1-Association – Rules struck down
– s.21A inserted by 2006 amending Act – Challenged – Division
Bench of High Court upheld s.21 and held that the deeming fiction
would apply only where a trader fails to establish direct evidence
of sale or purchase having been undertaken outside the notified
market area; Committee constituted – Contempt alleged – Appellants
held guilty – On appeal, held: Civil contempt means willful
disobedience of a decision of the Court – Willful disobedience is
relevant – Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard
of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a
higher official in the absence of knowledge – Vicarious liability as
a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt – Further, High
Court on the earlier occasion while dealing with the challenge made
to s.21 made a categorical assertion that it did not wish to go into
the disputed questions of fact – However, in the order under
challenge it was done – A finding was given on the documents
produced by the respondent no.1 which could at best be pieces of
evidence to be appreciated by the committee constituted – In cases
where cess was levied, individual members of the respondent no.1
could have made their challenge before the Committee – Order
passed by the High Court in contempt case set aside.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Standard of proof – Held:
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required since the proceedings
are quasi-criminal in nature.
Contempt of Court – Disputed questions of facts – Held: While
dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct
a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
485
allegedly violated – Said principle has to be applied with more vigor
when disputed questions of facts are involved.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 After the order under challenge before this
Court, the provision underwent further change having been
repealed by an ordinance followed by an appropriate
enactment. The Court is dealing with a civil contempt. The
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean
a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what
is relevant is the “willful” disobedience. Knowledge acquires
substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a
subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the
Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the
absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element
of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a
deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a
proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-
criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is
provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been
violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the
court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the
benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through
separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but
certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with
a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving
inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly
violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigor
when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised
earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific
forum to decide the original proceedings. [Paras 5, 8][490-G-H;
492-C-G]
Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal, 2020 SCC
Online SC 438; Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16
SCC 204 : [2014] 1 SCR 538 – relied on.
1.2 The High Court on the earlier occasion while dealing
with the challenge made to Section 21 of the Act, made a
DR. U.N. BORA, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER v. ASSAM
ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021]

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.