Supreme Court of India
M.L. SACHDEVversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1990 INSC 337
- Decided
- 5 November 1990
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- RANGANATH MISRA
Holding
The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, was held guilty of contempt for willfully failing to comply with the Supreme Court's order to constitute the MRTP Commission within the prescribed time, but no punishment was imposed due to the Union's apology and subsequent compliance.
Summary
The Supreme Court, hearing a public‑interest writ under Article 32, directed the Union of India to fill the vacancies in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission within three weeks, later extending the deadline to 7 July 1990. The Union, represented by Secretary A.N. Verma, failed to appoint a Chairman and the requisite members by that date and did not seek any further extension. A contempt petition was filed, and the Court held that the Union’s failure to comply, despite knowledge of the order, amounted to contempt. The Court rejected the Union’s claim that the steps taken and the affidavit constituted extenuating circumstances, emphasizing the duty to obey court orders under Article 144. While finding the Union guilty of contempt, the Court, noting an unqualified apology and subsequent appointment of a Chairman and a member, chose not to impose a penalty, merely ordering compliance and hoping for no recurrence.
Issues considered
- Whether the Union of India, through its Secretary, is guilty of contempt for failing to comply with the Supreme Court's order to constitute the MRTP Commission within the stipulated time.
- Whether the affidavit and partial attempts to reconstitute the Commission constitute extenuating circumstances that could excuse contempt.
- Whether the Union was required to apply for a further extension before the deadline expired.
- Whether the Court may impose a punishment or merely a reprimand in a contempt proceeding under these circumstances.
Legislation cited
Subjects
contempt of courtMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices ActSection 5Union of Indiaappointment of statutory bodiesArticle 144mandamuspublic interest litigationnon‑compliance with court orders
Judgment
.. M.L. SACHDEV
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
NOVEMBER 5, 1990
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ AND KULDIP SINGH, J.] B
Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I: Section 2-M.R. T.P. Commis-
sion_._Fifling up posts of Chairman and Me1nbers-Direction regarding
-Default of by Union of India-Secretary, Ministry of Indu.vtry--He/d
guilty of contempt.
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, .J969: Section
c
5-Chairman and Members of Commission-Fi/ling up posts of-
Direction regarding-Default of by Union of India-Secretary,
Min is tty of Industry-Held guilty of contempt.
Article.144 of the Constitution requires all authorities, civil and D
judicial, in the territory oflndia to act iu aid of the Supreme Court.
Section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act,
1969 provides that the Commission shall consist of a Chairman and not
Jess than two and not more than eight other members. The said Com-
mission having been rendered non-functional with the death of its
E
Chairman in December, 1989 and retirement of three out of four
members by March, 1990 the petitioner sought a direction to the Union
of India to fill up the said posts. By its order dated April 20, 1990 the
Court directed that the Commission be appropriately constituted within
three weeks. By a subsequent order dated May 25, 1990 the Vacation
Judge extended the time to comply with the said direction till 7th July,
F
1990. The respondent-Union having failed to comply with the order by
the said date the petitioner moved a petition for contempt. In its order
dated 12th October, 1990 the Court held that by not constituting the
Commission on or before 7th July, 1990 its direction had been violated
and directed issue of notice on the contempt petition. ·
G
In the affidavit filed on October 22, 1990, the Secretary, Depart-
ment of Company Affairs, Ministry of Industries of the Union Govern-
ment averred that he did his best to obtain orders of appointment of
Chairman and the Members of the Commission as per directions of the
Court, that there has been no wilful negligence or intention to disobey
the orders and that further reasonable time may be granted for comp- H
leting the procedure of appointment.
545
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
...
Allowing the contempt petition, the Court,
A
HELD: 1. The respondent-Union in the Ministry of Industries
represented by the Secretary was guilty of contempt of the Court.
2.1 It was the obligation of the Union of India to constitute the
B Commission in the manner prescribed under Section 5 of the M.R.T.P.
Act, 1969 and when it failed to do so the Court bad given the direction
comply with the requirements oflaw.
2.2 Once it was found that before the extended date direction was
not being complied with, it was the obligation of the respoodent-contemner
to approach the Court for further extension of time or to receive such
C direction as the Court in its discretion thought it appropriate to make.
No such petition was ever fJled before or after 7th of July, 1990 and
even after notice of contempt was served, such step was not considered
necessary and the Union Government remained satisfied by indicating
in the affidavit of the contemner that extension should be given. Since
D the mandamus had been addressed to the respondent Union, it could
not keep away from the Court in such a way without complying with the
direction. The fact that some attempt was made to reconstitute the
Commission does not constitute an extenuating circumstance.
3.1 By invoking the power of contempt, the Court seeks only to
E ensure that the majesty of the Institution may not be lowered and the
functional utility of the constitutional edifice may not be rendered inef-
fective. It expects the Union of India to exhibit the most ideal conduct
for others to emulate.
3.2 In view of the offer of unqualified apology and the fact that
F the Chairman and a Member have in the meantime been appointed and
the Commission in terms of s. 5 of the Act has been reconstituted the
Court does not propose to impose any punishment in the hope and trust
that there would be no recurrence of the conduct.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Civil) No.
G 172 of 1990.
IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 297 of 1990.
H (Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia).
- M.L. SACHDEV v. U .0.1. [MISRA, CJ.I
San jay Parekh for the Petitioner.
547
A
Ashok H. Desai, Solicitor General and Miss A. Subbashini for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. A three Judge Bench of this Court
in Writ Petition No. 297 of 1990 made an order on April 20, 1990 to
the following effect:
"This is an application under Article 32 filed as a
public interest litigation for a direction to the Union of
India to fill up the posts of Chairman and Members of the c
Commission under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
Practices Act, 1969. Notice was issued on this petition on
28th February, 1990 and service had been effected before
26th of March, 1990. The Writ Petition was adjourned on
28th of March, 1990 till 9th of April~ 1990 to enable Union D
of India to file its counter-affidavit. Such affidavit has,
however, not been filed till today. When the matter was
listed yesterday we were told that if the matter be called
today a statement could be made as to when the posts shall
be filled up. Counsel for the Union oflndia says that within
a month's time these appointments are likely to be made. E
It is not disputed that the Chairman of the Commis-
sion died in harness on 11.12.1989. One of its members
retired on 31.12.1989. The third member has retired on
28.2.1990. Mr. Manchanda, the other member who was
acting Chairman retired on 22.3.1990. It is said that the F
term of one member only has been extended after notice
was issued in the case.
--..._ Under the Act the Commission becomes functional
with a Bench of tWo members and in view o( the fact that it
has only"'one existing member for some time, the Commis- G
sion bas not been functioning.
It is not disputed that the Commission is the king-pin
.,... for the functioning of the MRTP Act and is the statutory
mechanism for enforcing the law brought about for public
benefit. Its provisions are intended to provide protection to H
A
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
consumers and control monopolies. In these circumstances
-
we have not been able to appreciate why the Commission
has been rendered non-functional by keeping the various
posts vacant. We direct that the Commission shall be
appropriately constituted within threr. weeks from today.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
B
At the instance of the Union of India the learned Vacation Judge
on 25.5.90 extended the time to comply with the direction given in the
Writ Petition till 7th of July, 1990.
On the allegation that the order of this Court of April 20, 1990,
was not complied with by 7th of July, 1990, a petition for contempt was
c filed in this Court on 7th of August, 1990. On 21.9.90notice was issued
on the petition and on 12.10.90 the following order was made:
"Issue notice on the Contempt Petition to Mr. A.N.
Verma, Secretary of Industry and Company Affairs to
D appear and show cause on 22.10.1990 why he should not be
convicted for Contempt of Court for non-compliance of the
Court's order dated 20.4.1990. We are satisfied that con-
tempt has been committed, therefore, no preliminary
notice has been issued."
E An affidavit was filed on 22.10.90 by the contemner Shri A.N.
Verma, Secretary, Department of Company Affairs, Ministry of
Industries of the Union Government where it was averred that certain
steps were taken for the re-constitution of the Monoplies and Restric-
tive Trade Practices Commission set up under the Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
F Act') but the appointment of the Chairman could not be finalised as
the Judge to whom the offer had been made ultimately declined. It was
pleaded:
"It will be seen from the above facts and circums-
tances that the Deponent did his best to obtain orders of
G appointments of Chairman and the Members of the
M.R.T.P. Commission as per directions of this Hon'ble
Court, but the appointments could not be made despite all
efforts and due diligence. There has also been no wilful
negligence or intention to disobey the orders of this
Hon'ble Court in the matter.
H
M.L. SACHDEV v. U.0.1. [MISRA, CJ.] 549
The Deponent accordingly seeks the indulgence of A
this Hon 'ble Court and submits that in special circums-
tances of the case, the Deponent or the Respondent may
not be held guilty of disobedience of the directions of this
Hon 'ble Court and that further reasonable time may be
granted for completing the procedure of appointment of
the Chairman and the Members." B
At the hearing of the motion for contempt learned Solicitor
General appeared for the contemner and the contemner was also pre-
sent in the Court. Counsel fairly conceded that this Court has rightly
held in its order dated 12th October, 1990, that by not constituting the
Commission by appointment of the Chairman and Members of the
Commission on or before 7th July, 1990, the Court's direction has C
been violated. He, however, maintained that steps were taken for
constituting the Commission as detailed in the affidavit and they con-
stitute extenuating circumstances; and, therefore, no serious view
should be taken of the lapse.
D
The Act, as the Statement of Objects and Reasons ·shows, is a
statute to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not
result in the concentration of economic power to the common detri-
ment and to prohibit such monopolistic and restrictive trade practices
as are prejudicial to public interest. The Commission is the kingpin for
the operation of the statutory scheme. Section 5 of the Act provides E
that the Commission shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two
and not more than eight other members. By non filling of the post of
Chairman and members at the time of the original order was made, the
Commission then left with a single member, in view of the statutory
procedure, was not able to act as the Commission.
F
The order of this Court made on the 20th of April, 1990, fixing
three weeks' time for compliance should have sufficiently conveyed to
the Union of India that immediacy is involved in the matter. The
Central Government was aware of the position that compliance within
the specified time was important and, therefore, had approached this
Court for extension of time and time had been extended upto 7th of G
July, 1990. It was the obligati~n of the Union of India to comply with
the direction on or before the expiry of .the fresh date. It is conceded
that no further extension was obtained, though there was no comp-
liance. In fact no petition for extension of time was·ever filed before or
after 7th of July, 1990 and even after notice of contempt was-served,
such step was not considered necessary and the Union Government H
'
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
remained satisfied by indicating in the affidavit of the contemner that
A
extension should be given.
The Union of India being the party against whom the direction
had been made was bound by the order and it was its obligation to see
that the direction was properly implemented. Under Article 144 of the
B Constitution all authorities, civil and judicial in the territory of India
are required to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Once it was found that
before the extended date the direction was not being complied with, it
was the obligation of the respondent-contempt to approach the court
for further extension of time or to receive such direction as the court in
its discretion thought it appropriate to make. The mandamus in this
case required the Union of India to comply with it in a specific manner
c and the Union of India as respondent in the writ petition to whom the
mandamus had been addressed could not keep away from the court
without complying with the direction.
We have not been able to find any extenuating circumstances in
D the affidavit of the contemner Shri A.N. Verma, Secretary in the
Ministry of Industries and since he does not plead ignorance of the
direction of this Court he should be imputed with the knowledge of the
consequences of failure of compliance. We are not in a position to
accept the submission of the learned Solicitor General that in the
matter of compliance of the order of the court beyond the time indi-
E cated, the fact that some attempt was made to reconstitute the Com-
mission constitutes an extenuating circumstances.
It was the obligation of the Union of India to constitute the
Commission in the manner prescribed under section 5 of the Act and
when it failed to do so this Court had given the direction to comply
F with the requirements of the law. The conduct of the Union of India in
these circumstances must be taken as one of indifference to the Court's
direction. Therefore, no conclusion other than one holding the respon-
dent guility of contempt can be reached.
As we have pointed out, Shri A.N. Verma is a senior administra-
G tive officer and should have taken appropriate care to strictly comply
with the direction of this Court. This Court on an earlier occasion
pointed out that Courts ·Constitute an inbuilt mechanism within the
framework of the Constitution for purposes of social audit and to
ensure compliance of the Rule of Law. In enforcing compliance of
orders of this Court and in punishing for lapses in the matter of comp-
H liance by invoking the power of contempt, this Court seeks only to
M.L. SACHDEV v. U.0.1. [MISRA, CJ.I 551
ensure that the majesty of this institution may not be lowered and the A
functional utility of the constitutional edifice may not be rendered
ineffective. This Court expects the Union of India to exhibit the most
ideal conduct for others to emulate.
We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the respon-
B
dent-Union of India in the Ministry of Industries represented by Shri
A.N. Verma, Secretary in the same" Ministry is guilty of contempt of
this Court.
In recent times, instances of non-compliance with Court's direc-
tions have multiplied and it is necessary to curb such tendency of
litigating parties. We, however, do not propose to impose any punish- c
ment in view of the offer of unqualified apology offered in paragraph 8
of the affidavit but hope and trust that there would be no recurrence of
the conduct. ·
We take judicial notice of the fact that the Chairman and a
D
Member have in the meantime been appointed and the Commission in
terms of section 5 of the Act has been reconstituted.
P.S.S. Petition allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search