K. K GUPTA & ORS. versus HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS ASSOCIATION & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 1004 · Decided: 11-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
K. K GUPTA & ORS.
v.
HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS
ASSOCIATION & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3731 of 2018)
APRIL 11, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
 AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt Proceedings – Scope
of – Writ petitions filed by respondents – By order dtd. 17.5.12,
High Court passed direction to frame guidelines and till the
guidelines were framed, there was a direction to maintain status quo
as on the date of the judgment – Guidelines framed – Respondents
filed contempt petition alleging that the said guidelines were in
violation of judgment dtd. 17.5.2012 – High Court held that the
guidelines framed were in violation of the judgment and issued
further orders as well – Held: There was no violation of the status
quo order granted on 17.5.2012 – Direction to maintain status quo
was only till framing of guidelines – Once the guidelines were
framed, the life of the interim order to maintain status quo also expired
and thereafter, the field was to be governed by the new guidelines –
In contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of the
judgment which is alleged to have been violated – Impugned order
is set aside.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is very difficult to appreciate the stand of the
High Court that there was violation of the status quo order granted
on 17.05.2012. The direction to maintain status quo was only till
framing of guidelines. Once the guidelines were framed, the life
of the interim order to maintain status quo also expired and
thereafter, the field was to be governed by the new guidelines
framed and notified on 21.05.2014. If the respondents are, in any
way, aggrieved by the guidelines, it is for them to pursue
appropriate remedy but not proceedings for contempt. In
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1004
1004
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1005
contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of the
Judgment which is alleged to have been violated.  The Court’s
jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is to see whether there is
willful disobedience of any direction or a contumacious attempt
otherwise to circumvent the Judgment. Sans that the rest should
be left to the aggrieved party to pursue the matters in other
appropriate proceedings. [Para 7][1007-C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3731
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2015 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in COPC No. 587 of 2014.
WITH
C. A. No. 9310 of 2016 and C. A. No. 3732 of 2018
Tushar Mehta, Sandeep Sethi, ASGs, Ravi Prakash, Ms. Iti
Agarwal, Ankit Jain, Mohit Darar, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Vernika Tomar,
Ritesh Kumar, Mukul Singh, S. A. Haseeb, Raj Bhahadur Yadav, Kaushal
Yadav, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J.
SLP (C) No. 22843 OF 2015
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the direction
dated 28.05.2015 issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla
in Contempt Petition (COPC) No. 587 of 2014.  It was the allegation of
the respondents – writ petitioners that the policy guidelines dated
17.02.2014 framed pursuant to the directions issued by the court are in
violation of the spirit of the Judgment dated 17.05.2012.  It was also
alleged that there is a violation of the interim arrangement made by the
court.  In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to extract
the operative portion of the Judgment dated 17.05.2012, which reads as
follows :-
“42. Consequently, in view of the observations and analysis
made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.  Respondent
No. 1 is directed to take a decision to notify petroleum,
K. K GUPTA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS
ASSOCIATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
petroleum products and natural gas within a period of twelve
weeks from today.  Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to
comply with the action approved in the meeting held on
9.6.2011, as per para 7, within a period of six weeks from
today.  Thereafter, respondent No. 1 shall take final decision
and issue appropriate directions/guidelines/instructions on
the opening of new retail outlets.  Till then, the parties are
directed to maintain status quo as of today.  Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.  There shall,
however, be no order as to costs.”
3. We do not think that there is any ambiguity in the order.  The
direction was only to frame gui
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.