M.L. SACHDEV versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 05-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
M.L. SACHDEV 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 5, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ AND KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I: Section 2-M.R. T.P. Commis-
sion_._Fifling up posts of Chairman and Me1nbers-Direction regarding 
-Default of by Union of India-Secretary, Ministry of Indu.vtry--He/d 
guilty of contempt. 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, .J969: Section 
5-Chairman and Members of Commission-Fi/ling up posts of-
Direction regarding-Default of by Union of India-Secretary, 
Min is tty of Industry-Held guilty of contempt. 
Article.144 of the Constitution requires all authorities, civil and 
judicial, in the territory oflndia to act iu aid of the Supreme Court. 
Section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 
1969 provides that the Commission shall consist of a Chairman and not 
Jess than two and not more than eight other members. The said Com-
mission having been rendered non-functional with the death of its 
Chairman in December, 1989 and retirement of three out of four 
members by March, 1990 the petitioner sought a direction to the Union 
of India to fill up the said posts. By its order dated April 20, 1990 the 
Court directed that the Commission be appropriately constituted within 
three weeks. By a subsequent order dated May 25, 1990 the Vacation 
Judge extended the time to comply with the said direction till 7th July, 
1990. The respondent-Union having failed to comply with the order by 
the said date the petitioner moved a petition for contempt. In its order 
dated 12th October, 1990 the Court held that by not constituting the 
Commission on or before 7th July, 1990 its direction had been violated 
and directed issue of notice on the contempt petition. 
· 
In the affidavit filed on October 22, 1990, the Secretary, Depart-
ment of Company Affairs, Ministry of Industries of the Union Govern-
ment averred that he did his best to obtain orders of appointment of 
Chairman and the Members of the Commission as per directions of the 
Court, that there has been no wilful negligence or intention to disobey 
the orders and that further reasonable time may be granted for comp-
leting the procedure of appointment. 
545 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
Allowing the contempt petition, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The respondent-Union in the Ministry of Industries 
represented by the Secretary was guilty of contempt of the Court. 
2.1 It was the obligation of the Union of India to constitute the 
B 
Commission in the manner prescribed under Section 5 of the M.R.T.P. 
Act, 1969 and when it failed to do so the Court bad given the direction 
comply with the requirements oflaw. 
2.2 Once it was found that before the extended date direction was 
not being complied with, it was the obligation of the respoodent-contemner 
to approach the Court for further extension of time or to receive such 
C 
direction as the Court in its discretion thought it appropriate to make. 
No such petition was ever fJled before or after 7th of July, 1990 and 
even after notice of contempt was served, such step was not considered 
necessary and the Union Government remained satisfied by indicating 
in the affidavit of the contemner that extension should be given. Since 
D the mandamus had been addressed to the respondent Union, it could 
not keep away from the Court in such a way without complying with the 
direction. The fact that some attempt was made to reconstitute the 
Commission does not constitute an extenuating circumstance. 
3.1 By invoking the power of contempt, the Court seeks only to 
E ensure that the majesty of the Institution may not be lowered and the 
functional utility of the constitutional edifice may not be rendered inef-
fective. It expects the Union of India to exhibit the most ideal conduct 
for others to emulate. 
3.2 In view of the offer of unqualified apology and the fact that 
F 
the Chairman and a Member have in the meantime been appointed and 
the Commission in terms of s. 5 of the Act has been reconstituted the 
Court does not propose to impose any punishment in the hope and trust 
that there would be no recurrence of the conduct. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 
G 
172 of 1990. 
IN 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 297 of 1990. 
H 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia). 
..
-
M.L. SACHDEV v. U .0.1. [MISRA, CJ.I 
547 
San jay Parekh for the Petitioner. 
A 
Ashok H. Desai, Solicitor General and Miss A. Subbashini fo

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