T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD THROUGH THE AMICUS CURIAE versus ASHOK KHOT AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 10-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

j _.. 
.) 
T.N. GODA YARMAN THIRUMULPAD THROUGH THE 
AMICUS CURIAE 
v. 
ASHOK KHOT AND ANR. 
MAY 10, 2006 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., ARIJIT PASAYAT 
AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Supreme Court-Closure· of all un-licensed saw mills, 
veneer and plywood industries directed by Supreme Court and State 
Governments prohibited from giving permission to open such units without 
prior permission of a Central Empowered Committee (CEC)-State 
Government seeking permission to re-open such units dependent on imported 
timber, but same declined by Supreme Court-To take a policy decision in 
the matter a High Powered Committee (HPC) constituted by State and 
thereafter permission granted to some of such units on basis of decisions of 
contemnors, Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government and 
Minister, lncharge of Department of Forest-Proceedings for civil and 
criminal contempt against them-HELD-Both the contemnors deliberately 
flouted the orders of Supreme Court in a brazen manner and it cannot be 
said that there was no mens rea-They ignored the contra1y view of Deputy 
Secretary and deliberately misread HPC's recommendations-Principal 
Secretary manipulated official records to show that there was difference of 
opinion in subordinate officers and view in favour of grant of permission was 
possible-Plea of Minister that he was not highly educated depended on 
views of HPC/high placed officials and was not aware of complexities of 
orders of this Court rejected as he had been a parliamentarian, a member 
of Legislative Assembly and Minister for long period; it was especially so 
he did not indicated as to why views of Deputy Secretary was not accepted-
Apology offered found shorn of penitence and hence rejected-Both 
contemnors found liable to exemplary sentences-Custodial sentence of one 
month simple imprisonment imposed in each case. 
These are proceedings for contempt of court. Contemnor no.1 was 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of 
Maharashtra and contemnor No. 2 was the Minister, lncharge of 
Department of Forest at the relevant point of time. On the basis of 
submissions made by Amicus Curiae, Proceedings for civil and criminal 
H 
215 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
contempt were initiated against them. It was pointed out by him that this 
Court had directed the closure of all un-licensed saw mills, veneer and 
plywood industries, and by subsequent orders it was directed that no 
State Government would permit the opening of any saw mill, vaneer and 
plywood industry without the prior permission of the Central Empowered 
B 
Committee. The State of Maharashtra sought permission to permit the 
re-opening of saw mills/veneer and plywood industries inter alia dependent 
on imported timber which permission was declined by this Court. On 
enquiries made by CEC as well as Amicus Curiae the State Government 
stated that the orders of this Court will be complied with and mills in 
question were actually closed. But by orders of subsequent dates the State 
C 
of Maharashtra granted permission to aforesaid six units to operate in 
the State. Such permissions were granted on the basis of decisions taken 
by the contemnors I and 2 deliberately and consciously though fully 
aware of the orders of this Court with the sole motive of favouring those 
units and to evade enforcement of the orders of this Court. It was pointed 
D 
out that as a result of such orders, the units have been permitted to 
operate in direct contravention of the orders of this Court. 
E 
As the Court was of the view that in fact contempt of this Court's 
order has been committed charges were ordered to be framed against 
them. Affidavits in relation to the charges were filed by contemnors. 
Contemnor no.I contended that (i) the opinion given by him was 
ba§ed on the decision taken by the High Powered Committee, and that 
if he has made a mistake in his bona fide interpretation of the orders of 
this Court there was no mens rea involved and he tenders his unconditional 
F 
apology (ii) there was no disobedience, much less wilful disobedience of 
the orders of this Court so as to amount the contempt (iii) the units in 
question were not closed as the State Government was of the opinion that 
units running exclusively on slicer or peeler machines do not require a 
licence and cannot be termed as un-licensed units even after the order 
G 
of this Court; however on subsequent orders of t

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