Citations: The Aligarh Municipal Board Vs Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union,1970
Date of the judgement: 04.08.1970
Equivalent Citations: 1970 CriLJ 1520
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1966
Case Type: Appeal by special leave
Appellants:
- The Aligarh Municipal Board
- The Executive Officer of the Board
- Shri Kanhaiyalal, Demand Inspector of the Board,
- Ahmad Khan, peon
- Hoti Lal, Munshi of the Board,
Respondent: Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union
Bench:
- Hon’ble Justice ID Dua
- Hon’ble Justice S Sikri
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
- The dispute arose when Aligarh Municipal Board’s collected fees from Ekkawalas and Tongawalas for using municipal stands at various locations in Aligarh city.
- To stop the continued collection of fees, the Union, along with six of its members, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court on 29th January, 1965.
- The court granted an interim order of stay, directing the Board not to collect fees for stands at specific locations.
- Even after the interim order of stay on collection of fees Aligarh Municipal Board’s continued collecting fees.
- The Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union filled a petition in the High court stating that Aligarh Municipal Board has committed an offence of contempt of court by not following courts order.
- The High Court found them guilty of contempt of court for disobeying a stay order issued on 29th March, 1965.
- The Aligarh Municipal Board and its officers filled in appeal against the HC order in the supreme court.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the Aligarh Municipal Board and its officers are guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with the stay order issued by the Allahabad High Court on 29th March, 1965.
Judgement:
- The Aligarh Municipal Board, which is a corporation, was held liable for contempt because the command to a corporation is also a command to those responsible for its affairs.
- The Executive Officer’s appeal was allowed as his directions were clear and unambiguous, and he had offered an unqualified apology.
- Ahmad Khan and Hoti Lal, who were not initially named in the contempt application, were not found guilty of contempt, as they were not shown to have knowledge of the stay order and no official direction to stop fee collection was given to them.
Contention of Appellant:
The Counsel of appellants Contended that:
- The appellants argued that they were justified as they were verifying the authenticity of the stay order as it was not officially served and lacked a certified copy.
- They contended that there was no evidence of fees being collected from the respondents.
- The appellants claimed that their conduct was bona fide and reasonable, and they offered an unqualified apology.
Contention of Respondent:
The Counsel of Respondents Contended that:
- The respondents, maintained that the appellants were fully aware of the stay order and had deliberately ignored it. They argued that the stay order was clear, and there was no valid reason to doubt its authenticity.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The certified copy of the stay order issued by the High Court was in possession of Bhagwan Das, the Secretary of the Union, and was shown to the officers concerned.
- When an order of the High Court is conveyed to an individual or authority, it is their duty to ensure its authenticity and promptly obey it.
- The Demand Inspector’s persistent delay in complying with the High Court’s order, despite clear directions from superior officers, was not justifiable, and it amounted to contempt of court.
- In cases of contempt of court, it is not necessary for the order to be officially served; knowledge of the order’s existence and intention to enforce it is sufficient.
Obiter Dicta:
N/A
Conclusion:
In conclusion the case revolved around the delayed implementation of a High Court’s stay order, leading to contempt of court charges against the Demand Inspector and the Municipal Board, while others were granted appeals or not held liable due to lack of knowledge or explicit instructions.
Drafted by: Bhavani Balaji
Edited by: Bharti Verma, Associate Editor at Law Insider
Published on: October 15, 2023 at 18:16 IST