T.C. GUPTAversusBIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS.

                        [2013] 12 S.C.R. 170


A                            T.C. GUPTA
                                  v.
                  BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 9476 of 2013)

                        OCTOBER 25, 2013
B
        [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

        CONTEMPT OF COURT:

c        Contempt proceedings - A contempt action being in the
    nature of quasi criminal proceedings, the degree of
    satisfaction that must be reached by the court to hold a person
    guilty of commission of contempt would be akin to what is
    required to prove a criminal charge, namely, proof beyond
0   reasonable doubt.

       Contempt proceedings -- Alleging disobedience of order
  of High Court - High Court holding the appellant guilty of
  commission of contempt of its order and ctirecting for his
  personal appearance for hearing on quantum of punishment
E - Held: Order of the court in respect of which violation is
  alleged must be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and
  defiance thereof must be apparent on the very face of the
  action with which a contemnor is charged -- In the instant case,
  the interim order of the High Court had directed status quo to
F be maintained in respect of allotments -- Admittedly, no
  allotments had been made by the appellant or any other
  authority -- Order of High Court set aside - Haryana
  Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975.

G        Contempt proceedings - Interpretation of the order
    alleged to have been disobeyed - Held: Would not be
    appropriate while dealing with a charge of contempt -- In a
    situation like the case in hand, where High Court had directed
    maintenance of. status quo as to allotment, it was not open
H                                170
   T.C. GUPTA v. BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS.                  171


for High Court to hold the contemnor guilty by understanding A
the said order to mean status quo or a restraint in respect of
grant of licences under the Act.

    CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971:

      s.12, Explanation - Unconditional apology - Held: An
                                                                   8
apology tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected
merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional so long
it is made bona fide -- There is nothing on record to suggest
that the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by
appellant in his reply before the High Court was actuated by       C
reasons that are not bona fide.

     In a writ petition instituted in public interest before the
High Court raising a grievance with regard to the Final
Development Plan, on the application for stay of the o
implementation of the Plan, the High Court on 18.8.2011
directed status quo as to allotment to be maintained.
However, the appellant who was the Director General,
Town and Country Planning, granted a licence dated
28.12.2011 for setting up of a Residential Plotted Colony E
on 100.262 acres of land. This led to the institution of the
contempt proceedings in which the appellant filed his
response contending that no allotment was made by him
or by any other authority so as to constitute violation of
the order dated 18.08.2011. The appellant also tendered F
 his unqualified and unconditional apology. However,
High Court by its order dated 23.7.2012 held the appellant
guilty of commission of contempt and passed orders for
his personal appearance for hearing on the quantum of
 punishment. Aggrieved, the Officer filed the appeal. None
appeared on behalf of the first respondent i.e. writ G
contempt petitioner.

     Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. A contempt action being in the nature of           H
    172    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A quasi criminal proceedings, the degree of satisfaction
  that must be reached by the court to hold a person guilty
  of commission of contempt would be akin to what is
  required to prove a criminal charge, namely, proof
  beyond reasonable doubt. The order of the court in
B respect of which violation is alleged must, therefore, be
  clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and defiance
  thereof must be apparent on the very face of the action
  with which a contemnor is charged. In the instant case,
  the interim order of the High Court had directed status
C quo to be maintained in respect of allotments. Admittedly,
  no allotments had been made by the appellant or any
  other authority. [para 10) [177-F-H; 178-A]

      1.2 An interpretation of the terms of court's order in
  respect of which disobedience is alleged would not be
D appropriate while dealing with a charge of contempt.
  Such a charge cannot be brought home by unravelling
  the true meaning of the court's order by a subsequent
  order when there is an apparent ambiguity, lack of clarity
  or dichotomy in the initial order. In a situation like the
E case in hand, where the High Court had directed
  maintenance of status quo as to allotment, it was not
  open for the High Court to hold the contemnor guilty of
  commission of contempt by understanding the order
  dated 18.08.2011 to mean status quo or a restraint in
F respect of grant of licences under the Haryana Act of
  1975. [para 10) [178-A-D]

       1.3 Further, the Explanation to s. 12 of the Contempt
  of Courts Act, 1971 makes it clear that an apology
  tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected merely
G on the ground that it is qualified or conditional so long it
  is made bona fide. The appellant, in his. reply, after
  offering his explanations, had tendered his unconditional
  and unqualified apology in the event the explanations did
  not commend for acceptance of the High Court. There is
H
   T.C. GUPTA v. BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS.                173


nothing on record to suggest that the unqualified and            A
unconditional apology tendered by the appellant in his
reply before the High Court was actuated by reasons that
are not bona fide. The order dated 23.07.2012 passed by
the High Court cannot be sustained and, as such, is set
aside. [para 11 and 13] [178-E-F, G-H; 179-C]                    B

    O.P.Sharma and Ors. Vs. High Court of Punjab and
Haryana 2011 (6) SCR 301    =
                          (2011) 6 SCC 86, relied on.

                    Case Law Reference:
                                                                 c
    2011 (6) SCR 301         relied on             para 11

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9476 of 2013.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2012 of the          D
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.O.C.P.
No. 120 of 2012.

    Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, Anubha Agarwal for the
Appellant.
                                                                 E
    Soli J. Sorabjee, Arun Monga, Aviral Dhirendra, Tushar
Bakshi, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Parmod K. Singh, Jitender
Bidhuri for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                   F
    RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. By its order dated 23.07.2012 the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana has found the appellant guilty of commission of
contempt in respect of an order dated 18.08.2011 passed in       G
Civil Misc. No.10994 of 2011 arising out of Writ Petition (C)
No.11684 of 2011. Consequently, the appellant was summoned
to appear before the High Court on 30.07.2012 for hearing
before pronouncement of order on the punishment to be
imposed. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.           H
    174       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 12 S.C.R.


A        3. The facts that will be necessary to be noticed are as
    follows:

        The respondent No.1 herein, as the writ petitioner
  instituted a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court
  (C.W.P. No.11684 of 2011) raising a grievance with regard to
8
  the Final Development Plan 2025-AD for Gurgaon-Manesar
  Urban Complex published vide Notification No. CCP (NCR)/
  FDP(G)/2011/1386 dated 24.05.2011. Specifically, it wa:s
  contended that Sectors 63-A and Sector 67-A have been
  carved out in the Development Plan contrary to the Zoning
C Regulations which are required to be followed. The Final
  Development Plan, it may be noticed, is prepared under the
  Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of
  Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as
  the Act of 1963).
D
       4. Notice on the writ petition was issued by the High Court
  on 8.07.2011. Thereafter, on 11.08.2011 Civil Misc. Application
  No.10994 of 2011 was filed before the High Court for stay of
  the implementation of the Final Development Plan "in view of
E contemplated grant of licence to the colonizers/developers/
  societies." On 18.08.2011 the following order was passed by
  the High Court in C.M.No.10994 of 2011:

          "Notice for the date fixed.

F         Mr. Anil Rathee, Addi. A.G., Haryana, present in Court,
          accepts notice.

          In the meanwhile, there will be status quo as to allotment
          as on today."
G        5. Though an application to vacate the aforesaid interim
   order was filed by the Respondents in the writ petition the
   interim order was neither vacated nor modified by the High
 . Court and continued to remain in force. While the matter was
  _so situated the appellant who then serving as the Director
H General, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, had granted a
    T.C. GUPTA v. BIMAL KUMAR DUTIA & ORS.                    175
               [RANJAN GOGOi, J .]
licence dated 28.12.2011 for setting up of a Residential Plotted     A
Colony on land measuring 100.262 acres falling in Sector 63-
A of the Gurgaon-Manesar. The aforesaid grant of licence
[under the Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban
Areas Act, 1975] (hereinafter referred to as 'Haryana Act of
1975') by the appellant had led to the institution of the contempt   B
proceeding in question which was registered as C.O.C.P.
No.120 of 2012. The said action was initiated on the basis that
the grant of the licence dated 28.12.2011 by the appellant is
 in violation of the order of the Court dated 18.08.2011.

      6. The appellant had filed his response in the contempt C
proceeding contending that no allotment was made by him or
by any other authority so as to constitute violation of the order
of the High Court dated 18.08.2011. The appellant, in his reply,
further stated that in every residential sector, a maximum of 20%
of the net planned area was earmarked for group housing and D
3.5% for commercial purposes whereas for plotted residential
colonies there was no restriction except the requirement of a
minimum area of 100 acres. It was also stated that while the
applications for group housing and commercial activities was
to be accorded priority on the basis of date of application the E
same was not so in respect of applications for plotted colonies
which are to be considered and licences are to be granted on
fulfilment of the conditions prescribed. It was further stated by
the appellant that though not specifically prohibited by the order
dated 18.08.2011, out of sheer deference, no licence has been F
granted or contemplated for group h_ousing colony/commercial
 colony as such licences can be granted upto a maximum limit ·
 of the net planned areas. Licences for plotted colonies,
 according to the appellant, stood on a different footing inasmuch
 as for grant of such licences no ceiling limit exists. After offering G
 the aforesaid explanations, in the penultimate paragraph of the
 reply the appellant had tendered his unqualified and
 unconditional apology in the following terms:

            'It is humbly submitted that the answering deponent       H
    176       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R


A         has unfailing regard for this Hon'ble Court and all othHrs
          courts of India and cannot think of disobeying any order
          passed by the Hon'ble Law Court. It is an article of faith
          for them to respect the orders passed by the Hon'ble
          Courts. However, if this Hon'ble Court still comes to the
B         conclusion that the answering deponent has committed
          any contempt of court, the deponent tender unqualified and
          unconditional apology for the same.'

       7. The High Court, on consideration of its interim order
  dated 18.08.2011 and response of the appellant referred to
C above, came to the conclusion that its order dated 18.08.2011
  has to be understood to have imposed a comprehensive
  embargo on issuance of all kinds of licences and, therefore,
  the grant of licence dated 28.12.2011, though for a plotted
  housing colony, amounted to violation of the order dated
D 18.08.2011. Accordingly, the High Court held the appellant guilty
  of commission of contempt and passed orders for his personal
  appearance for hearing on the quantum of punishment.

       8. We have heard Mr.Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned
E Attorney General for India, appearing for the appellant, Mr.
  Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
  and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the
  respondent No.3. None has appeared on behalf of the first
  respondent i.e. writ contempt petitioner before the High Court.
F       9. It is the common ground of the learned coi.nsels
  appearing for the contesting parties that the interim order of the
  High Court dated 18.08.2011 had only restrained the
  concerned authority from making any allotments. Admittedly, no
  allotment{s) were made. There was no specific order
G prohibiting the implementation of the development plan, though
  such a relief was prayed for before the High Court. It is urged
  that the appellant, in his reply, had set out the manner in which
  he had understood the order dated 18.08.2011, namely, that
  the said order had not placed any kind of prohibition on grant
H of licences under the Haryana Act of 1975. Yet, out of
    TC. GUPTA v. BIMAL KUMAR DUTIA & ORS.                   177
              [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

deference to the order of High Court, no licence either for group A
housing or commercial activities in either Sector 63-A or 67-A
was issued or granted and the entire of the earmarked land in
both these sectors for Group Housing and Commercial
purposes was kept vacant. Only in respect of plotted colonies
for which there was no ceiling limit the licence dated 28.12.2011 B
was issued. It is further urged that in the light of the specific
order passed by the High Court it cannot be said that the
appellant or any other person or authority had violated the
same. It is also pointed out by the learned counsels that, in any
view of the matter, the appellant had tendered his unqualified c
and unconditional apology which, in fitness of things, ought to
have been accepted by the High Court. Lastly, the learned
Attorney General, by drawing the Court's attention to the counter
 affidavit filed before this Court by the second respondent, has
 submitted that the writ petition itself had been dismissed by the 0
 High Court on 30.10.2012 holding that the validity of the
 development plan published by the Government in accordance
 with the relevant provisions of the Statute is not open to
 challenge by means of a Public Interest Litigation. It is also
 pointed out that the aforesaid order of the High Court has E
 attained finality in law.

      10. The terms of the order of the High Court dated
18.08.2011; the averments/statements made in the contempt
petition and the reply thereto on behalf of the appellant as well
as the subsequent facts placed before us have received our          F
due and anxious consideration. The interim order of the High
Court had directed status quo to be maintained in respect of
allotments. Admittedly, no allotments had been made by the
appellant or any other authority. A contempt action being in the
nature of quasi criminal proceeding the degree of satisfaction      G
that must be reached by the Court to hold a person guilty of
commission of contempt would be akin to what is required to
prove a criminal charge, namely, proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The order of the Court in respect of which violation is
alleged must, therefore, be clear, unambiguous and                  H
    178       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A unequivocal and defiance thereof must be apparent on the very
  face of the action with which a contemnor is charged. An
  interpretation of the terms of Court's order in respect of which
  disobedience is alleged would not be appropriate while dealing
  with a charge of contempt. Such a charge cannot be brought
B home by unravelling the true meaning of the Court's order by a
  subsequent order when there is an apparent ambiguity, lack of
  clarity or dichotomy in the initial order. In a situation like the
  present where the High Court had directed maintenance of
  status quo as to allotment when the interim prayer was to stay
c the implementation of the final development plan "in view of
  contemplated grant of licence to the colonizers/developers/
  Societies" it was not open for the High Court to hold the
  contemnor guilty of commission of contempt by understanding
  the order dated 18.08.2011 to mean status quo or a restraint
  in respect of grant of licences under the Haryana Act of 1975.
0
          11. In an earlier part of the present order, we have noticed
  the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the
  appellant before the High Court in the event his explanations
  were to be found unacceptable. The explanation to Section 12
E of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, makes it clear that an
  apology tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected merely
  on the ground that it is qualified or conditional so long it is made
  bona fide. In his reply, the appellant, after offering his
  explanations, had tendered his unconditional and unqualified
F apology in the event the explanations did not commend for
  acceptance of the High Court. In the decision rendered in
    O.P.Sharma and Ors. Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana',
  this Court has already held that in view of the explanation to
  Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act an apology ought not
G to be rejected only on the ground that it is qualified so long as
  it is made bona fide. In the present case there is nothing on
  record to suggest that the unqualified and unconditional
  apology tendered by the appellant in his reply before the High
  Court was actuated by reasons that are not bona fide.
H   1.   (2011)6SCC86[para34and35]
     T.C. GUPTA v. BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS.                     179
                [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
       12. It has also been noticed by us that the writ petition in     A
 which the interim order dated 18.08.2011 came to be passed
 has been finally terminated by an order dated 30.10.2012
 dismissing the writ petition and also that the said order has
 attained finality in law. This is another relevant circumstance that
 cannot be ignored though we should not be understood to be             B
 saying that all cases of dismissal of the writ petition, by itself,
 would absolve a contemnor of the charge of commission of
 contempt in respect of an interim order passed while the writ
 petition had remained pending.

       13. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the       C
  order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the High Court. We
, accordingly set aside the said order dated 23.07.2012 and
  allow the appeal.

 R.P.                                             AppeFtl allowed.      D