LexHOSHIAR SINGH versus GURBACHAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
HOSHIAR SINGH
v.
GURBACHAN SINGH
(S. K. DAS, K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR
DAYAL, JJ.)
127
Contempt of Court-Issue of prohibitory order-Knowledge
aliunde-Disobedience-Absence of official communication, if a
proper defence-Senttnce.
The appellants,· one a Sub-Divisional Officer and the
other a
Naib Tehsildar, were
entrusted with the duty
of allotting land to displaced persons. The first respondent
forcibly occupied the land allotted to B. On May 9, 1958,
the first
appellant ordered that B
and other allottees
similarly situated would be given possession of lands allotted
to them on May 20, 1958. On May 16, 1958, the first
respondent and
others threatened with dispossession filed
petitions in the High Court under Art. 226 of the constitu-
tion and obtained interim
~tay of delivery of possession till
May 19, 1958, when the petitions would come· up before
the Division Benc;h for admission. On May 19, 1958, the
Division Bench extended the operation of the stay
order
until May 23, 1958. The notice of the first stay order reached
the appellants on May 19, 1958, but no notice of the second
order was officially communicated to them till May 21, 1958.
It was alleged that on May 20, 1958, the appellants, although
informed of the second stay order by certain interested
persons and the Advocate for orie of the parties, form:illy
dispossessed_ the respondent in disob~dience of the Court's
order and handed over possession of the land to B.
On the
complaint of the respondent the High C0urt held that the
appellants were guilty of contempt of court and·,· instead of
committing them for contempt, administrated a warning as
the appellants honestly believed that they were not bound to
stay delivery of possession in absence of an official communi~
cation. The appellants appealed by special leave.
Held, (per Das and Subba Rao, .JJ.)that in a case.pf con·
tempt for disobedience of a prohibitive order, as distinguished
from an order of affirmative nature, it was not necessary to
show that notice of the prohibitory order was served upon
the party against whom it was granted. It would be sufficient
if it was proved that the party had notice of it aliunde.
N. Baksi v. C. K. Ghosh, A. T. R. (1957) Patn. 528,
referred to.
1962
Februa'} 8.
1962
H()shiar Singh
v.
Gurbacha1, Si11:h
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
There may Le circumstances where officials entrusted
\\'ith the carryinR" out of a Jcgal order mighr have valid reasons
~o dru ht 1 lic aut.hf'nticity of. the order con\'cycd to them hy
1nl<>rested
part1e~.
But
1n the present cast' there could
hardly he any such rt·ason!'.. The appellants had really no
justification for doubting the
authenticitv of an
ordr.r
cornmunica ted to them hy- an A<lvocatc.
'
.
H"Ti/, furthr-r. t}1at in a m;i;tter reJating to contempt of
co11rt, thrre cannot he hoth j11stification and apology.
M. Y. S/.ni.,f v. 'J'he Tfon'lil, .TurlgPS of the Tligh Court of
l\'ngr.ur. [lg'"l I~- C'. R. 757, referred to.
A lthm1~h thr appellants mi~ht hav• hnn.,.tly believed
tl-<lt 1hr\0 \\·rrl" not l-ounrl to hoJ<l thf'ir hand in absence of an
offcial rrimm11nirati0n. that wo111(1 be no defence to the
rl1tlr_!"'r nf r0nt<'mpt of ~011rt, hut only a relevant consideration
in a\\·arding- the 5Pntenrr.
p,,,r
Da\'al. J.-Contr.mpt proct-erlin.vs are c:riminal
or Olltlsi
<'riminal in naturt" and it i" essential that he.fore
any artinn ran he tal.:fn thr accusation must ht- specified in
rhar::ictcr. Tn thf inc:tant rasc, the rc,.pondent rlirl not state
that he ,.•,:as fnrmally Oispossfsc:rd. Thi'.". would he for some
reason if actu<ll pnc:-.~ssion had hf'<'n delivered. He could not
l--t- saicl to ht\\'{' c:omr to rourt with cl"an hands. Further, the
fiPrlinl! nf tl~e Jlie'h C011rt that the appellants
delivered
no<::session l·onrstl,· hrlic\'in(! that tht-y \\'ere not hound not to
do -.o in the ahc:rnc:r oi 11,~ nffir-ial r-omm11nic:ation meant that
there: ,.,•as no rlrfiancr of thr l-fit"h f'.nurt's order. There conlrl
he no \\'ilful
cHsohedienc~ sinc:t:> th,.re \vac; no helicf in the
cxic;ff'nc:e of the ordrr.
It mav nnt he ncc:es<:.arv that the party against l\·hom a
p'"ohihitorv order ,.,·a<:. m:v1f" must he sr.r\'c<l "·ith the order, but
it sl·oulO Pa''(' noticr nf the nrdt"r tr.for,. it could be cxpt'Ctf"rl
to nl·t"Y .. Such noticr mn~t h,- from sourct-o; connected v.:ith
the court
p;i~<;inrr thr oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.