LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

S.K. DASGUPTA & ORS. versus VIJAY SINGH SENGAR & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 05-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 881 
S.K. DASGUPTA & ORS. 
V. 
VIJAY SINGH SENGAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal of 6794 of 2003) 
MAY 5, 2010* 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 
JJ.] 
Conte mp~ of Court 
Contempt petition before High Court -Β· Arising out of 
directions by High Court in a writ petition filed in public interest 
to officials of State Electricity Board to provide uninterrupted 
supply of electricity to government Hospitals and street lights 
A 
B 
c 
to be on during nights, throughout the State - High Court 
directing impleadment of senior Members of the Board and D 
others as
1 contemnors and ordering inquiry to be held by CBI 
- HELD: The directions made by High Court are clearly 
beyond courts' jurisdiction in a public interest litigation as 
they interfere with the functioning of independent State 
agencies in matters which are beyond their control insofar as 
E 
uninterrupted supply of electricity is concerned - It cannot be 
ignored that shortage of power is a phenomenon common 
to the entire country and to single out Members of the Board 
or the Regulatory Commission for failure to comply with the 
directions of the High Court which are incapable of F 
compliance, is not called for - Officers of the Board have 
repeatedly come to Court to explain that the situation was 
beyond their control and that the shortfall in the supply of 
electric power was not of their making nor in their control -
High Court ignored this basic fact and passed orders which 
G 
were incapable of compliance - Order of the High Court set 
aside and contempt proceeding discharged - Public Interest 
Litigation. 
β€’Judgment Recd. on 26.7.2010 
881 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
PUBLIC INTEREST LIT/GA TION: 
Jurisdiction in public interest litigation- Held: Is to be 
invoked sparingly and with rectitude and any order made 
therein must be reasonable and must not reflect the pique of 
B 
the court, more particularly, as it is not court's business to 
attempt to run the government in a manner which the court 
thinks is the proper way - Judicial restraint. 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6794 of 2003. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 1.4.2003 of the High 
Court of Judicature of M.P. Bench at Gwalior (M.P.) in CP (C) 
No. 37 of 2003 in W.P. No. 677 of 2003. 
WITH 
D 
C.A. Nos. 6795 & 6796 of 2003. 
E 
Ashiesh Kumar, B.S. Banthia for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
These appeals arise out of a contempt petition wherein a 
Sin~ile Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior 
Bench, in his order dated 1st April, 2003 has ordered an 
enquiry against some officials and members of the M.P. State 
F 
Electricity Board by the Central Bureau of Investigation and 
arrayed some senior Members of the Board and others as 
contemnors as well. 
The facts are as under: 
G 
The respondent, Vijay Singh Sengar, a practising 
Advocate at Jabalpur, filed a writ petition in public interest 
pointing out that patients in Government hospitals were 
suffering great agony on account of un-scheduled load-
shedding from 6.30 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 
H 
p.m. and that the entire State was plunged into darkness taking 
S.K. DASGUPTA & ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH SENGAR & 883 
ORS. 
the State back to the 'Stone Age Days'. Alongwith the writ 
A 
petition a large number of newspaper cuttings were also 
appended, to substantiate the pleas that had been raised. 
During the hearing of the petition several senior officers of the 
Board were summoned to Court including Mr. R.N. Mishra, the 
Chief Engineer (0 & M). It was also observed in an interim 
B 
order made by the Court that the Board had undertaken to take 
all measures to supply electricity for street lights and that in a 
democratic set up it was the responsibility of the State to 
ma1ntain all essential services and the basic amenities of life. 
It was also observed that it was a matter of common c 
knowledge that the absence of the power supply to Government 
hospitals caused great discomfort, pain and constituted a 
danger to the patients who were admitted therein. By an order 
dated 13th September, 2001, a direction was accordingly given 
in the following terms: 
"We, therefore, as an interim measure, direct 
respondents 1 and 2 to maintain round the clock electricity 
supply in the Government Hospitals throughout the State. 
We further direct that the street lights shall be kept on 
D 
throughout the State between sunset

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