Shantabai (deceased) through LRs Shaiventi & Ors vs State of M.P.

This contempt application under Article 215 of Constitution of India r/w Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is filed for non-compliance of order of this Court passed in W.P. No.1447/2016 dated 02.03.2016.

Brief facts relating to the application are that the present applicant filed a writ petition bearing No.1447/2016 seeking direction to the respondent to dispose of his appeal filed under the provisions of Marketing Discipline Guidelines against the order of termination of dealership within a specified time. This Court while disposing of the writ petition passed following order :-

"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a limited relief of issuing the directions to the appellate authority to decide the petitioner''s pending appeal within a time bound period.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that against the order of termination of dealership dated 12.11.2005, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 05.06.2015 and the said appeal has not been decided till now. Since the limited relief has been claimed in the present writ petition and undisputedly the appeal which is pending before the appellate authority is required to be decided within a time bound period.

Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the appellate authority to consider and decide the petitioner''s pending appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

CC as per rules."

This contempt application is filed stating that inspite of specific instruction by this Court, appeal was not decided by the respondent.

The respondent filed a written reply. In the reply, it was stated that the dealership of the present applicant was cancelled, as the samples taken from the Retail Outlet, which was being run by the present applicant were found adulterated. Subsequent to this, a writ petition was filed in the year 2006 bearing No.1599/2006. Another writ petition was filed bearing No.6964/2006. This writ petition was dismissed on 02.05.2007 and the following order was passed :-

"From the perusal of the facts of the case aforesaid I find that the facts of that case are quite distinguishable. In that case the petitioner was removed from the services and he filed a Writ Petition which was withdrawn by him. After withdrawal of earlier petition he made fresh representation to the department and the department rejected his representation by passing an order. The Apex Court, therefore, held that it was incumbent upon the High Court to examine the legality of the order which was passed subsequent to dismissal of the first petition. Thus, in that case fresh order was passed after withdrawal of the petition which gave fresh cause of action. This is not a situation in the present case and the present petition is bases on of same cause of action."

According to learned counsel for the applicant, it was found by the Court that on the cause of action, second writ petition could not be filed.

Thereafter, the present applicant filed a third writ petition which was disposed of by the order as aforesaid by which it was directed that appeal filed by the present applicant should be disposed of.

In respect of the appeal, contention of the counsel for the respondent is that the present applicant was informed of the reasons way back in the year 2014 by letter dated 17.06.2014. Subsequently, it was informed to him that his appeal was filed beyond 30 days, and therefore, the appeal was not maintainable by letter dated 27.01.2016.

Counsel for the applicant submits that as the appeal was time barred, there is no necessity to decide it.

However, while the order was passed by this Court, the counsel representing the respondent, Shri Vikas Gupta appeared on his behalf. He took no objection in respect of the order which was passed by this Court and also no writ appeal was filed, and therefore, the respondent was under a duty to obey the order by this Court and disposed of the appeal filed by the present applicant on merit. This was not done and infact after passing of order by this Court on 02.03.2016, no action was taken by the present applicant.

In this view of the matter, I fine that there is a clear disobedience of order passed by this Court, and accordingly, instead of proceeding to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondent, it is directed that now, the order passed by this Court should be followed by the respondent within a period of three months from date of this order, failing which the applicant is at liberty to file a fresh contempt application.

With observation as above, the application stands disposed of.