H.G. RANGANGOUD versus M/S. STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 11-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 97 
H.G. RANGANGOUD 
v. 
M/S. STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED 
& ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2056-2059 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2011 
[H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971: 
s. 2(c)(ii) - Criminal contempt - Interference with due 
course of judicial processing -
Orr;ler passed by single 
Judge of High Court in writ petition - Writ petitioner moved 
A 
B 
c 
the State Government to implement the said order - Writ 
appeal filed subsequently - Meanwhile State Government D 
processed the matter - Division Bench of the High Court 
initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the writ 
petitioner and the Officer of the State Government - HELD: 
In the instant case, even before filing of the appeal the 
appellant had brought to the notice of the State Government 
E 
the order passed by the Single Judge and sought its 
implementation - In the representation he had not voiced and 
could not have voiced any opinion on the appeal as the same 
was not filed till then - The order of the Single Judge was not 
stayed - Further, mere filing of the appeal would not operate 
F 
as a stay of the order appealed from - The act alleged in no 
way prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due · 
course of any judicial proceeding - The proceeding initiated 
against the appellant as a/so the Officer is not just and 
appropriate but is an abuse of the process of the Court -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 215. 
G 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Article 136 read with Article 142 -Benefit of order in 
97 
H 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A appeal to non-appellant -
Appeal by writ petitioner 
challenging the order of Division Bench of the High Court 
initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against him and an 
Officer of the State Government- Officer not filing any appeal 
- Appeal of writ petitioner allowed - Held: It shall be too 
B technical to deny the officer the relief by Supreme Court, which 
has jurisdiction for doing complete justice in any cause or 
matter pending before it - Therefore, the Officer shall a/so be 
entitled to the same relief as the appellant - Contempt of 
Courts Act, 1971 - s. 2(c). 
c 
The appellant applied on 16.4.2003 for grant of mining 
lease for iron ore. The State Government, by its letter 
dated 9.2.2004, recommended to the Central Government 
for grant of mining lease in favour of the appellant to an 
extent of 16.8 hectares. But, before any decision could 
D be taken in the matter, the Central Government issued 
notification dated 27.6.2005 and reserved iron ore 
deposits for exploitation by the respondent-State Trading 
Corporation of India Ltd., a public sector undertaking. On 
the writ petition filed by the appellant, the single Judge 
E of the High Court quashed the said notification. The 
appellant represented to the State Government to 
consider his application for grant of mining lease. 
Subsequently, the respondent filed a writ appeal before 
the Division Bench of the High Court challenging the 
F order of the single Judge. No interim order was passed. 
The appeal was heard and judgment was reserved. 
Meanwhile, the respondent-Corporation brought to the 
notice of the Division Bench of the High Court that the 
State Government had sent a communication to the 
G Union of India for grant of mining lease in favour of the 
writ petitioner. The High Court observed that it amounted 
to interference with the due course of judicial process 
and initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings 
against the appellant and the Under Secretary to the 
H Government of Karnataka, Commerce and Industries 
H.G. RANGANGOUD v. STATE TRADING CORPORATION 
99 
OF INDIA LTD. 
Department. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed the 
A 
appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. This Court seldom interferes with an order 
initiating a contempt proceeding and ordinarily relegates 
B 
the person charged with contempt, to file a show cause 
before the court which had initiated the proceeding. But 
this is not an absolute rule and in the facts of a given case 
when this Court comes to the conclusion that the 
allegation made, even when not denied do not constitute 
C 
contempt, it interfere with the order initiating contempt 
proceeding so as to avoid unnecessary harassment to 
the person served with contempt notice. [para 5) [103-G-
H; 104-A] 
2:1 The expression "criminal contempt" has been 
defined u/s 2 (c)

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