SHANTI DEVI versus STATE OF SIKKIM AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 307 · Decided: 25-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 307 
. .,. 
SHANTI DEVI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF SIKKIM AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 687 of 2008) 
JANUARY 25, 2008 
B 
[ASHOK BHAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
"' 
~ 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ petition -
Relief - Grant of - Scope - Contempt proceedings - Abuse 
of process of law - Shop run by Appellant and her husband in c 
rented premises - Trade Licence for running the shop issued 
in favour ofhusband - He died - Writ petition by Appellant for 
transfer of trade licence in her favour- Dismissal of, by High 
Court with imposition of cost of Rupees One Lakh on the 
Appellant - Besides, direction to Appellant to vacate the D 
tenanted premises within one week - On expiry of one week, 
landlord filed contempt petition against Appellant - Issuance 
-"' 
of non-bailable waffant - Court passed orders. directing the 
Police authorities to take possession of the premises and hand 
over same to landlord - Justification of - Held: Not justified -
E 
High Court was deciding a writ petition for reliefs prayed for by 
Appellant and not a civil suit for eviction against her and in 
such a proceeding no mandatory order of eviction could be 
passed and certainly not against the Appellant herself - No 
special circumstances were indicated by the High Court to 
F 
.... 
show why such a heavy cost was required to be imposed on 
the Appellant - Besides, orders on the contempt petition were 
passed in haste and in gross abuse of due process of Jaw -
High Court did not even verify whether notice of the contempt 
proceedings had been seryed personally and without waiting 
for any response from Appellant concluded that it was a case G 
-....... 
of contempt of court - Consequently, cost imposed by High 
Court and ·the contempt proceedings initiated against 
• 
Appellant quashed and landlord directed to restore 
possession to Appellant - High Court to reconsider the matter 
307 
H 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R 
A afresh - Sikkim Trade Licence and Misc. Provisions Rules, 
1985 - r 12(m). 
Appellant and her husband were running a shop in 
a rented pre"'.lises owned by Respondent No.2. The Trade 
Licence in respect of the shop was issued in favour of 
8 the Appellant's husband. He died. Appellant, who 
continued to run the said shop·, applied for issuance of a 
fresh trade licence in her favour. The concerned 
authorities declined the request in absence of a NOC from 
Respondent No.2-landlord. Appellant thereafter filed writ 
C petition praying for transfer of the trade licence issued in 
favour ·of her late husband to herself and also for striking 
down the requirements of obtaining NOC from the landlor~ 
together with the provisions of Rule 12(m) of the s'ikJdm 
Trade Licence and Misc. Provisions Rules, 1985 as being 
D arbitrary and illegal. High Court dismissed the writ petition 
and also imposed cost of Rupees One Lakh on Appellant 
besides directing her to vacate the tenantei:t premises in 
question within one week. On the very next day after 
expiry of one week, Respondent No.2 filed contempt 
E petition ·against the Appellant which was taken up by the 
Court on the same day and the Appellant directed to 
appear before the Court the following day. No one 
appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Non-bailabie'wari"ant 
of arrest was is'sued against the Appellant and the Court 
F passed orders directing the Police authorities to take 
possession of the premises in question and hand over 
the same to Respondent No. 2. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
liELD:1.The decision in the said writ petition call's 
not only for intervention by this Court but also for certain 
observations to be made regarding the manner in which 
the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the 
Constitution have been misapplied. [Para 11] [314-G, 
H 315-A] 
' 
1 
t· 
)-
) 
1r---
• 
\ 
' 
• 
-f 
SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF SIKKIM AND ANR. 
309 
2.1. What is of grave concern is the fact tha·t the A 
Judges completely disregarded the civil law relating to 
eviction and directed the writ petitioner-appellant to hand 
over possession of the tenanted premises to respondent 
No.2. The case in hand is an example of how the writ 
courts have in recent times either forgotten or ignored B 
the line between the reliefs which could be given by the 
Civil Courts and the Constitutional Courts. The Judges 
appear to have lost sight of the fact that they were 
deciding a writ petition for reliefs prayed for by the wr

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