T.C. GUPTA & ANR. versus HARI OM PRAKASH & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 08-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 10 S.C.R. 247 
T.C. GUPTA & ANR. 
v. 
HARi OM PRAKASH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.9095 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 8, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
A 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.12(1) rlw Explanation 
thereto -'- Contempt proceedings against appellants for not 
furnishing requisite information to the High Court - Challenge 
C 
to - Held: The High Court had required the appellants-State 
officials to furnish names of such land owners who had not 
filed their objections u/s.5A of the Land Acquisition Act, and 
yet their lands were released from acquisition - Though 
information furnished in the written statement filed by the 
D 
appellant was just the reverse (as information was furnished 
in respect of landowners who had filed their objections), 
circumstances of the case do not lead to the sole conclusion 
that there was a deliberate or wilful attempt on the part of the 
appellant not to furnish the requisite information or to furnish 
wrong information to the High Court - Rather,· failure to furnish 
requisite information to the Court may have been occasioned 
by a momentary error of judgment on the part of appellant -
For the said lapse, he tendered his unqualified apology in 
affidavit alongwith which he also furnished the requisite 
information - Situation calls for a broad and magnanimous 
view of the matter and acceptance of the unconditional 
apology tendered by the appellant - Order of the High Court 
holding appellant guilty of contempt of Court, set aside - Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.5A. 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Exercise of contempt 
jurisdiction - Scope - Held: The power to punish for contempt 
is a rare specie ofjudicial power which by the very nature calls 
for exercise with great care and caution. 
E 
F 
G 
247 
H 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondents 1 & 2 filed writ petition in the High 
Court challenging the acquisition of land belonging to 
them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894. The High Court made a query in its order dated 17-
1-2011 requiring the appellants- State officials to·furnish 
B the names of such land owners who had not filed their 
objections under Section SA of the Act and yet their lands 
were released from acquisition. However, the information 
furnished by the appellant in the written statement dated 
19-01-2011 was just the reverse i.e. he furnished 
c information in respect of landowners who had filed their 
objections. The High Court issued notice to the 
appellants to show cause as to why contempt 
proceedings should not be initiated against them for not 
furnishing the requisite information to the Court. 
D 
The appellant filed affidavit on 28-01-2011 tendering 
unconditional and unqualified apology, and, in the 
affidavit filed, also furnished the requisite information. The 
appellant further stated that the lapse on his part was 
bona fide and unintentional. The High Court, however, 
E placing reliance upon email dated 17-01-2011 alongwith 
attachment sent by the appellant to his subordinate 
officials, came to the conclusion that the appellants had 
wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court ·for which they 
were liable to be punished and accordingly, held the 
F appellants guilty of commission of contempt. Aggrieved, 
the appellants filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A reading of the e-mail dated 17-01-2011 
G alongwith attachment sent by the first appellant to his 
subordinate officials, would seem to indicate that on the 
very day of the order i.e. 17 .01.2011 the first appellant 
understood the said order to be requiring him to lay 
before the High Court information as to whether the land 
H 
T.C. GUPTA & ANR. v. HARi OM PRAKASH & ORS. 249 
owners in favour of whom land has been released had 
A 
filed objections under Section SA of the Act or not. This 
is how the first appellant understood the order of the 
High Court. At that point of time the order of the Court 
was not available to the first appellant. On such 
understanding of the order dated 17 .01.2011 the first 
B 
appellant directed the concerned subordinate official to 
furnish information in the prescribed format in respect of 
the land owners who had filed their objections under 
Section SA of the Act so that the same could be placed 
before the Court on the date fixed. [Para 12] [2S6-B-D] 
c 
1.2. The e-mail dated 17 .01.2011 partially bears out 
the stand taken by the first appellant that h

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