K. K GUPTA & ORS.versusHIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS ASSOCIATION & ANR.

1004                      [2018]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   3 S.C.R. 1004                  [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A                             K. K GUPTA & ORS.
                                          v.
               HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS
                             ASSOCIATION & ANR.
 B                        (Civil Appeal No. 3731 of 2018)
                                   APRIL 11, 2018
          [KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
                             AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
 C
              Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt Proceedings – Scope
       of – Writ petitions filed by respondents – By order dtd. 17.5.12,
       High Court passed direction to frame guidelines and till the
       guidelines were framed, there was a direction to maintain status quo
       as on the date of the judgment – Guidelines framed – Respondents
 D     filed contempt petition alleging that the said guidelines were in
       violation of judgment dtd. 17.5.2012 – High Court held that the
       guidelines framed were in violation of the judgment and issued
       further orders as well – Held: There was no violation of the status
       quo order granted on 17.5.2012 – Direction to maintain status quo
       was only till framing of guidelines – Once the guidelines were
 E     framed, the life of the interim order to maintain status quo also expired
       and thereafter, the field was to be governed by the new guidelines –
       In contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of the
       judgment which is alleged to have been violated – Impugned order
       is set aside.
 F           Disposing of the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 It is very difficult to appreciate the stand of the
       High Court that there was violation of the status quo order granted
       on 17.05.2012. The direction to maintain status quo was only till
       framing of guidelines. Once the guidelines were framed, the life
 G     of the interim order to maintain status quo also expired and
       thereafter, the field was to be governed by the new guidelines
       framed and notified on 21.05.2014. If the respondents are, in any
       way, aggrieved by the guidelines, it is for them to pursue
       appropriate remedy but not proceedings for contempt. In
 H
                                         1004
K. K GUPTA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS 1005
                    ASSOCIATION

contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of the              A
Judgment which is alleged to have been violated. The Court’s
jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is to see whether there is
willful disobedience of any direction or a contumacious attempt
otherwise to circumvent the Judgment. Sans that the rest should
be left to the aggrieved party to pursue the matters in other
                                                                             B
appropriate proceedings. [Para 7][1007-C-E]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3731
of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2015 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in COPC No. 587 of 2014.                         C
                                  WITH
      C. A. No. 9310 of 2016 and C. A. No. 3732 of 2018
      Tushar Mehta, Sandeep Sethi, ASGs, Ravi Prakash, Ms. Iti
Agarwal, Ankit Jain, Mohit Darar, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Vernika Tomar,        D
Ritesh Kumar, Mukul Singh, S. A. Haseeb, Raj Bhahadur Yadav, Kaushal
Yadav, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      KURIAN, J.
      SLP (C) No. 22843 OF 2015                                              E

      1. Leave granted.
       2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the direction
dated 28.05.2015 issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla
in Contempt Petition (COPC) No. 587 of 2014. It was the allegation of        F
the respondents – writ petitioners that the policy guidelines dated
17.02.2014 framed pursuant to the directions issued by the court are in
violation of the spirit of the Judgment dated 17.05.2012. It was also
alleged that there is a violation of the interim arrangement made by the
court. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to extract
the operative portion of the Judgment dated 17.05.2012, which reads as       G
follows :-
      “42. Consequently, in view of the observations and analysis
      made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent
      No. 1 is directed to take a decision to notify petroleum,
                                                                             H
1006             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A           petroleum products and natural gas within a period of twelve
             weeks from today. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to
             comply with the action approved in the meeting held on
             9.6.2011, as per para 7, within a period of six weeks from
             today. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 shall take final decision
             and issue appropriate directions/guidelines/instructions on
 B
             the opening of new retail outlets. Till then, the parties are
             directed to maintain status quo as of today. Pending
             application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall,
             however, be no order as to costs.”
              3. We do not think that there is any ambiguity in the order. The
 C     direction was only to frame guidelines and till the guidelines are framed,
       there was a direction to maintain status quo as on the date of the
       Judgment.
              4. The guidelines were framed on 17.02.2014, as directed by the
       High Court and notified on 21.05.2014. Paragraph 4D of the guidelines
 D     thus framed, reads as follows :-
             “D. Existing Roster of earlier SRMPs and advertisement of
             Back Log locations :-
             The existing Roster of old SRMPs made under the earlier
 E           guidelines has been frozen and closed in July 2012. The
             locations already advertised and which are at various stages
             of commissioning will be governed as per their advertisement
             conditions.
             Industry will work out the backlog for locations under SC/ST
 F           category based on the outlets commissioned/COCO’s divested
             and LOI’s issued against advertisement released after
             01.04.2002, under prevailing Marketing Plans of OMCs and
             advertise the same.”
              5. The High Court, as per the impugned order in the contempt
       petition, took the view that the guidelines framed by the companies are
 G
       in violation of the Judgment. The High Court, in exercise of its contempt
       jurisdiction, issued further orders as well. The order to the extent relevant
       is at Paragraph 12, which reads as follows :-
             “Thus, in furtherance of implementation of Judgment of this
             Court in CWP No. 3723 of 2010 dated 17.5.2012 in letter
 H
K. K GUPTA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS 1007
               ASSOCIATION [KURIAN, J.]

       and spirit, respondents are directed to consider the old cases,            A
       which were pending at the time of filing of the petition also,
       as per the new guidelines. Accordingly, the petition is disposed
       of and the notice is discharged. No costs.”
       6. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.
       7. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor            B
General appearing for the appellants, and Ms. Vernika Tomar, learned
counsel appearing for the respective respondent(s). As we have already
indicated above, it is very difficult to appreciate the stand of the High
Court that there is violation of the status quo order granted on 17.05.2012.
The direction to maintain status quo was only till framing of guidelines.         C
Once the guidelines are framed, the life of the interim order to maintain
status quo also expires and thereafter, the field is to be governed by the
new guidelines framed and notified on 21.05.2014. If the respondents
are, in any way, aggrieved by the guidelines, it is for them to pursue
appropriate remedy but not proceedings for contempt. In contempt
jurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of the Judgment which is          D
alleged to have been violated. The Court’s jurisdiction in contempt
proceedings is to see whether there is willful disobedience of any direction
or a contumacious attempt otherwise to circumvent the Judgment. Sans
that the rest should be left to the aggrieved party to pursue the matters in
other appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order dated              E
28.05.2015 is set aside and the appeal is allowed as above.
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9310 OF 2016 and SLP (C) No. 1865 OF
2016
       1. Leave is granted in SLP (C) No. 1865 of 2016.
                                                                                  F
      2. In view of the Judgment passed above, these appeals are
disposed of.
       Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.


Divya Pandey                                               Appeals disposed of.
                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H