AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.Y. Eqbal, C.J. and T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—This petition for initiation of contempt against the Respondents has been filed for the alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 7th Jan., 2011, passed by this Court in W.P. No. 191 of 2011.
The writ petition was filed by the Petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing Respondents 1 and 2 from associating with the 3rd Respondent, Tamil Maiyam, in any manner for the purpose of conducting cultural festival, viz., Chennai Sangama m, which was scheduled to be held between between 12 th Jan., 2011 and 17 th Jan., 2011. The case of the Petitioner in the writ petition is that public money is being spent for conducting the Chennai Sangama m and, therefore, incurring of any expenditure towards Chennai Sangama m cannot be given to the 3rd Respondent, which is an independent organization.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents in the writ petition, it was stated inter alia that the 3rd Respondent normally identifies and deploys recognized groups who perform the events in the Chennai Sangama m. There is no financial transaction between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the 3rd Respondent. It was further stated that the remuneration for the artists is paid directly by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation based on Government sanction. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit are reproduced herein below:
I submit that the third Respondent, Tamil Maiyam is a private Trust, constituted for the welfare of the artists, who are engaged in folk arts and other traditional cultural events. They identify and deploy recognized groups who per for min the events organized by Chennai Sangamam. There is no financial transaction between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the third Respondent. The remuneration for the artists is paid directly by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation based on the Government sanction and vouchers are obtained from the artists. The third Respondent has no say in organizing the events except identifying and deploying artists. Similarly the advertisements are released in the media directly by the department of Tourism and payment is made to these media by the department of Tourism.
I submit that for the last four years Chennai Sangamam has been conducting the festival after getting the artists identified by Tamil Maiyam successfully and the said events has attracted wide publicity and inflow of foreign tourists has been on the increase to witness the festival. The said festival is appreciated as greatest Open Air Festival.
I submit that the apprehension of the Petitioner in Ground - (b)that public money is being spent for the conduct of Chennai Sangamam is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. The Chennai Sangamam is a mega event conducted for development of tourism. The allegation that the events are being given to a private organization is totally misconceived. The third Respondent Trust only identifies and deploys the artists and remuneration to the artists is paid directly by the Government as stated here above.
I submit that the allegation in Ground - (c) that the Government of Tamil Nadu granted approval to the third Respondent to conduct the cultural festival is denied as incorrect. The Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation is making payments to the artists directly and the advertisements are released by the department of Tourism directly.
The writ petition was heard at length and after hearing the counsel, this Court disposed of the same with certain directions contained in paragraph 10 of the order, which reads as under:
Therefore, in the light of the above submissions, we dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order:
1) The statement in the counter affidavit filed by the second Respondent stating that there is no financial transaction between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the third Respondent as contained in paragraphs 10 to 13 is placed on record.
2) The third Respondent shall continue to be associated for the effective conduct of "Chennai Sangamam" festival scheduled to be held between 12.01.2011 and 17.01.2011.
3) As undertaken by the Respondents 1 and 2 no advertisement issued by the Government for popularizing the festival shall carry the name of the third Respondent.
The Petitioner''s case in this contempt petition is that the Respondents have willfully disobeyed and violated the direction of this Court and, thereby, committed contempt. According to the Petitioners, the advertisements relating to Chennai Sangama m are released in the media directly by the Department of Tourism and payment is made to the media by the Department of Tourism. In support of that, the Petitioner filed certain copies of the advertisement to show that the Respondent, Tourism Department was associating with the 3rd Respondent.
The Respondents 1 and 2, in their counter affidavit, categorically denied and disputed the allegations made by the Petitioner in the contempt petition. It is stated that none of the advertisements produced by the Petitioner were released by the Director of Tourism/Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation. On the contrary, it was made clear, after the aforesaid order was passed in the writ petition, by the Government Order that the 3rd Respondent shall not in any way be associated with the Respondents in making any advertisements relating to the Chennai Sangama m festival. The Respondents further stated that a categorical reply was sent to the Petitioner to its letter informing that invitation to the Chennai Sangama m festival carried the name of Tamil Maiyam were printed by the 3rd Respondent at their own cost and the 2nd Respondent was not in any way involved. The Respondents have filed copies of the advertisements exclusively issued by the Tourism Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.
Mr. Radha krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that prima facie it is evident that the Respondents have flouted the order and directions of this Court by associating them selves with the 3rd Respondent.
After considering the affidavits filed by the Petitioner and the Respondents and the copies of the advertisements and other materials, we do not find any reason to hold that the Respondents have violated or disobeyed the order of this Court.
It is well settled that before initiating a contempt proceeding, prima facie the Court has to be satisfied and to form an opinion that a prima facie case for initiation of proceeding for contempt is made out and that the Respondents or the alleged contemnors should be called upon to show cause as to why they should not be punished. The foundation for initiation of contempt proceeding has been discussed in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. D.K. Mittal and Another [OVERRULED], .
In the case of Anil Ratan Sarkar and Others Vs. Hirak Ghosh and Others, , their Lordships have elaborately discussed the scope and power under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for holding a person guilty of contempt of the Court. Useful reference can be had to paragraphs 13 to 15 of the said judgment:
Before proceeding with the matter further, certain basic statutory features ought to be noticed at this juncture. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the statute-book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country - undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the law courts but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless thus otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the statute. The observation as above finds support from a decision of this Court in Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati wherein one of us (Banerjee, J.) stated as below: (SCC p. 532, para 2)
As regards the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology ''he who asserts must prove'' has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the ''standard of proof'', be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt.
Similar is the situation in Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman2 and as such we need not dilate thereon further as to the burden and standard of proof vis-�-vis the Contempt of Courts Act - suffice it to record that powers under the Act should be exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the country. Exercise of power within the meaning of the Act of 1971 shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter on which there exists no doubt as regards the initiation of the action being bona fide.
It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "civil contempt" with in the meaning of Section 2(b)of the Act of 1971 - the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation - the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise.
As noticed above, from the detailed facts disclosed by the Respondents in the counter affidavit and after having applied our mind, we are of the definite view that there is no violation or disobedience, much less, willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. Hence, we do not think it fit to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents.
For the reasons aforesaid, this contempt petition is closed. Consequently, connected sub application is also closed.