AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.—In this contempt application filed under Sections 10, and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Petitioner/applicant has prayed to punish the Respondents for disobedience of the order of the court in W.M.P. No. 24979 of 1995 in W.P. No. 15730 of 1995 and subsequent order making the stay to continue until further orders dated 14.3.1996.
In support of the said petition, the Petitioner has sworn to an affidavit, wherein, he has stated that he has filed W.P. No. 15730 of 1995 against the Respondents praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records and quash the impugned order G.O.Ms. No. 1651 Home (TR VI), dated 31.10.1995, Transport Department revising the minimum auto fare to Rs. 6/- from 5.60 and 3/- from Rs. 2.80 for every subsequent k.m. and direct that an independent expert committee be appointed either by this Court or the State Government to examine the proper fare increase for auto rickshaws in the City etc.
He has also filed W.M.P. No. 24978 of 1995 for suitable direction for the Respondents to make all the autos in the city of Madras tamper proof within a period of one month from that date or within such times this Court feels reasonable and seize the erring autos for any violation to such directions and take necessary action against the auto owners and auto drivers, according to law. The said application is also pending disposal. He has also filed along with the said Writ petition, W.M.P. No. 24979 of 1995 for an order of operation of Go. Ms. No. 1651 Home (TR VI) Transport Department dated 31.10.1995 pending disposal of the said writ petition. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, on 14.11.1995 has passed an order of staying the operation of the said Government Order by which auto fares were increased by the Respondents as minimum fare to Rs. 6/- from 5.60 and Rs. 3/- from Rs. 2.80 for every subsequent kilometer. The Respondents also had filed counter in the said writ petition along with an application for vacating the stay on 19.1.1996. The stay granted by this Court is still in force.
The grievance of the applicant is that the Respondents in utter disregard and disrespect to the orders of stay passed by this Court in W.M.P. No. 24979 of 1995 have now revised the fare structure for autos and raised the minimum fare from Rs. 5.60/- to Rs. 7/- and for each subsequent kilometer the fare has been increased from Rs. 3/- to Rs. 350/- as notified in the Tamil Nadu Gazette of November, 1996. The said information has been published in the newspaper dated 8th November, 1996.
The said writ petition was in the monthly list for disposal as item No. 159 of this Court. The Respondents were aware of the same, as they are represented through their Advocates. Instead of waiting for final disposal of the said case or obtaining any permission or direction from this Court, the action of the Respondents in increasing the minimum fare and subsequent fare for each kilometer as mentioned above by their notification is mainly intended to subvert the authority of this Court and showing disrespect to the Courts. The conduct of the Respondents in increasing the fare structure for auto rickshaw was during the pendency of the stay amounts to interference with administration of justice and due course of judicial proceedings. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such act by the conduct of the parties to the litigation, especially by the Government authorities like the Respondents. The conduct of the Respondents, according to the applicant amounts to contempt of court, in view of stay passed by this Court punishable u/s 12 of the Act. This action of the Respondents appears to be by way of vengeance against the public and also with utter disregard and disrespect to the orders of this Court, dated 14.11.1995 and subsequent order regarding stay until further orders passed by this Court in W.M.P. No. 24979 of 1995.
The first Respondent, through the Secretary to Government, Home Department filed a counter-affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the Secretary has stated that he has the highest regard and respect for the orders passed by the Courts of law including the orders of this Court. He has further stated that in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that any act committed by the Respondent (proposed Respondent) could even remotely be construed as an act inconsistent with the order of this Court, this Respondent tenders an unconditional apology for the same. He has further submitted that in and about July, 1996, consequent to the policy decision by the Ministry of Government of India, prices of petrol and diesel were increased. Subsequently, in September, 1997, the rates have been further revised upwards. On an appropriate understanding of the order passed by this Court in W.M.P. No. 24979 of 1995, the Respondents understood that the order passed by this Court related only to stay of the operation of G.O.Ms. No. 1651 Home (TR VI) Department dated 31.10.1995 and the further increase of auto rickshaw fare, if any necessitated by the subsequent enhancement or escalation in the prices of petroleum products, diesel or automobile parts are not in any way included by the stay order, and subsequent Government Order has been passed.
He has further stated that however, with a view to ascertaining the correct legal position, the Respondents solicited the opinion of the Government pleader as to whether further hike in the fares of auto rickshaws, minimum fares of auto rickshaws, fares payable in subsequent kilometer can be considered in the light of stay order passed by this Court. The Government Pleader after perusing the records opined that there was no bar for further increase. He has further stated in the said counter-affidavit that the applicant did not pray for stay of future increase with regard to auto fares and as such, the further enhancement in the rate of fares for auto rickshaws did not in any event offend the order of stay granted by this Court in W.M.P. No. 24979 of 1995 dated 14.11.1995. He has also produced the opinion furnished by the Government pleader along with this counter-affidavit. Further he has reiterated that if the Court comes to the conclusion that any of the Respondents committed contempt of this Court''s order, the Respondent tenders an unconditional apology. The said counter-affidavit has been adopted by Respondent No. 2 also.
Subsequently on the basis of the stand taken by the Respondents in the counter-affidavit, the applicant also filed a petition u/s 151 of the CPC for impleading the proposed third party, Mr. R. Balasubramanian, the special Government Pleader, High Court Madras as third Respondent. The proposed third Respondent filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter-affidavit, the special Government pleader has submitted that he has the highest regard and respect for the orders passed by the Courts of law including the orders of this Court. He has further submitted that if any act committed by him could even remotely be construed as an act inconsistent with disobedience of the orders of this Court, he has tendered his unconditional apology for the same.
He has further submitted that auto rickshaw drivers and owners have sent a representation for the fixation of fare u/s 67(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, in view of the steep hike in petrol, diesel prices and the rise in the cost of living and the second Respondent had convened a meeting of the auto rickshaw owners and drivers and the auto passengers and welfare association on 17.7.1996. In respect of the said proposal the applicant/Petitioner has sent representations on 15.7.1996 and 19.7.1996 in which he has only sought for an opportunity to make representation in respect of the proposal. The Appellant has not raised any objections about the consideration of the proposal on 17.7.1996 even though the fact of the pendency of the writ petition and the stay granted in W.M.P. No. 24979 of 1995. was referred to in the said representation. The said meting was held on 17.2.1996 and in the said meeting, each one of them expressed their views. At the end, it was decided to fix the minimum auto fare at Rs. 7/- and Rs. 3.50/- per kilometer which was acceptable to all the parties.
The writ petitions viz., W.P. Nos. 15730 and 15731 of 1995 were listed for hearing before this Court on 19.7.1996 and the Petitioners made certain representations for adjournment of the case which invited certain observations. At last, this Court adjourned the hearing of the said writ petitions. Soon thereafter, the Department officials requested him in a letter in respect of the same. Accordingly, he has bona fidely given a letter explaining as to what transpired in the Court on 19.7.1996. He has further added in the counter-affidavit that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that any part of the contents of that letter are in variance with what transpired on that day in this Court, which could even remotely be considered as an act inconsistent with disobedience of the orders of this Court, he prayed that his conditional apology may be accepted.
I heard Mr. Lakshminarayanan, applicant-person as well as Mr. S. Murugesan, Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondents. Learned Counsel for the applicant cited number of authorities before me.
It is true that there was an order of stay of operation of G.O.Ms. No. 1651 Home (Transport VI) Department dated 31.10.1995. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed an application for vacating the stay order on 19.1.96. However, the said stay order has not been vacated. When there was a stay order operating against the implementation of the Government Order, the Government was not justified in calling for the meeting and enhancing the auto fare by passing another Government Order. The submission of the Respondents that on an appropriate understanding of the order passed by this Court in W.M.P. No. 24979 of 1995, it was understood that the order passed by this Court related only to the stay of the operation of G.O.Ms. No. 1651 Home (Transport VI) Department dated 31.10.1995 and the further increase of auto rickshaw fare, if any, necessitated by the subsequent enhancement or escalation in the price of petroleum products, diesel or automobile parts are not in any was included by the stay order cannot be accepted. The Government cannot expect the stay order of non-existing Government Order. When there is an order of stay of the implementation of the Government Order enhancing the auto fare, the Government should have known that it cannot enhance the fare of the auto rickshaw by introducing new Government Order. This clearly shows the non-application on the part of the Government, first of all in calling for the meeting and then passing a fresh Government Order. The explanation offered by the Government in this counter application cannot be accepted. The Respondents have further submitted that in view of the opinion furnished by the Special Government Pleader, the rate was enhanced. The Government has also enclosed the letter addressed by the Special Government Pleader. It is unfortunate how the Government Pleader should write such a letter stating that the pendency of the writ petition will not in any way stand in the way of the Government considering the subject matter to further revision of auto fare after following the due procedures laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act. Probably, this letter may come to the rescue of the Respondents 1 and 2. According to me, the action taken by Respondents 1 and 2 will clearly amount to contempt of Court. Since there is a letter written by the Special Government Pleader, I close this matter as far as Respondents 1 and 2 are concerned by giving them strict warning. I hope that here afterwards, Respondents 1 and 2 will be very careful while considering the order passed by the Court.
Coming to the letter written by the learned Special Government Pleader, I am to say that the Special Government Pleader should have been more careful when the discussion took place in the Court. It is hard to believe when a stay order is operating against the Government, the Court would have suggested that the stay order will not come in the way of Government passing a fresh order. This only shows that the Special Government Pleader was not alert or did not understand what went on inside the Court between the parties and the Court. The Special Government Pleader should have been more careful while furnishing such opinion to the Government. Since the Special Government Pleader has tendered his unconditional apology, I accept the said unconditional apology and with warning that in future he should be more alert and careful. I close this contempt proceedings against him also.
Ultimately, contempt application No. 461 of 1996 is closed and the proceedings are dropped. Consequently sub Application No. 254 of 1997 is dismissed.