Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Calcutta High Court wrongly granted the ex parte interim stay and contempt rule; such interim relief should not be granted without hearing and must consider public interest, leading to the vacating of the interim order and quashing of the contempt rule.

Summary

The Union of India challenged an ex parte interim stay order and a contempt rule granted by the Calcutta High Court in a writ petition filed by Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. seeking to restrain the Union from enforcing a clause‑8B order under the Import Control Order, 1955, and to permit re‑export of a consignment of beef tallow. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting such drastic interim relief without hearing the opposite parties, especially when the petition was filed in a distant High Court and the order concerned public interest and statutory powers. The Court emphasized that interim orders against public officials must be circumspect and that failure to dispose of licence applications does not amount to contempt of court. Consequently, the Court vacated the interim stay and quashed the contempt rule, allowing the appeal. The judgment also warned against filing writ petitions in remote jurisdictions as a tactical maneuver to delay proceedings.

Issues considered

The propriety of granting an ex parte interim stay of a statutory order under Clause 8‑B of the Import Control Order, 1955.
Whether the High Court erred in granting interim relief without hearing the respondents.
The applicability of contempt of court provisions to officials who failed to dispose of licence applications.
The relevance of public interest in deciding whether to grant interim relief against actions of public officials.
The appropriateness of filing writ petitions in a High Court distant from the place of the parties and records.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Import Control OrderClause 8‑Binterim stayex parte orderpublic interestcontempt of courtjurisdictionwrit petitionre‑exportstatutory power

Judgment

342
'A
A '
VNION OF INDIA AND 0THERS ' 't.

v. .

OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. AND. OTHERS
'.B
• March 27, 1984

[(). CmNNAPPA REom< A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J
•
lmpori Control Order, 1955. CtaU.se 8-B-Writ petitlon by company_impug-
C ~ring order un,der Clause 8-B·grant of· exjJarte lnteri111 stay by lfigh Court
M•hether 11nlid and ,legal. ·

·Practice ·& Procedu,~e-Statqtoty Or;lers-Grant o.f exparte interim stay by
Courts.:..validity of. · '

Petiti~ner company.situated in Punjab-Relief sought against Union Of lnd;fl" .·
situated in New Delhi-Writ petition in Calculta High Cor1~t-Flli~g of whe-
ther vafid-

The respondeflts filed. a Writ petition in the High Court. of Calcutta against
an order made under Clause 8-B of the Import Control ord~r 1955, in respect or
a consignffient of beef tallow \vhich arrived.at the Calcutta Port. A Single Judge
is~ue4_ a rule-and~ranted an interim ordey restrainin·& ·the Union of India" and
-the Chief Controller of ImP.orts and Export,<; from fil ihg any criminal complaint

-~
against the respotident-firm ·or its Directors and also a direction to pCrmit the:
. respondents to ·re-export the consignment of tallow. A.n application \vas made-
by the-Union of India to vacate the interim order, In the mean\vJ1ile the res-
pOndents sent letters and telegtams to. the departn1ent. intimating ·that. the
interim order of the High .Court had not been obeyed, and,threatening actioa
for contempt of Court,' An· application to co_.11mit _the Chief Controller or
Imports a~d Exports, and others for conte~pt Of c9urt was filed by the com-
.pany. Over-ruUng the request made on behalf of the Department to vacate the

-
iriterim order, the cou'tt issued a rule in the application for conten1pt and direc~ •
ted the..r>epar.ti;nent officials.to appear i~ person.

Bein'g aggrieved by the ot;:der, the Department filed'!- Special Leave Petition •...._,·
G
against the interim order a.nd the rule for contempt.

Allowing the appeal, vacating the ifiterim orde! and quashing the !ule fOi::-
-contempt" of Coutt ;· · ·

HELD: I. Writ' petitions .are often deliberalely filed in distant High
B . ,,. Coitfts, ~s.part of a manoeuvre i~·a legal battI~, so as. to fenPer it difficult r°""·
. ,,.

L"J-;JON 'v. OSWAL.WOOLLEN MILLS, 343.
. .. ~

.• the' ~ffici:ils at D!lhi to cio_v>!· applic~tion<J ·to. vaca~~ _·stay where it becomes .A·
- • 11eCessary to file such applications. 'An .irie~itable. 're~ult or ihe filing or' writ·
l)Ctitions -elsewhere_ than· at, tl1t viace ~her~ the concerned·Offi;::cs and. ihe re1e-.
--vant recOrds ~re localed is to d.!l~Y proJVpt retul-n and contest. [345B·C, A) . ·
. . .
.
- Jo ;he i~~tant-~<>t. th'! ~rit pel;tiOn w~'i flied. in the .Calc~tta· .Hi~h- _C~urt·:
--When the pl'fx:e of- tJie c"fn)1dny-is-in th~ Staie c.'f Pu.~jab and all the prin.ciPat B
: .J
... , ..
I .
· Tespond~nts ~r.: in.Delhi. ·
., -·
~ ' · ·
.
'
2. A 'St1rurory orJe; ~a:h" a:; th~ Ol)e ~~der" Clause 8-R of_ the Import .
·Control Ordet purporis to be made'. in the pub Ii.: interest· and Unless· there are
·~yen· stro~g~r grOupcls 'Or" rublic interest· ari ~x.'p:a'rte inte~frn· Order ~:ill nOt be.
, :jll5tified •.T~: ~illy rippl"ep_riatt'oi"dei 10· m?ke in..suCli c~ses is_'tO _issue notlce tO . a
- the respondents. and make it rclurnable" \vithin a !-hort·period.'This should parti.,; ,
· culafy bC so where 'the--Offi.:~~ of th.: Principal respondents and reieVant· reCofdS •'
lie. outside ·the. o·~dinary ju~isdiction· or the ~ C<?urt. '.To , g·rant ·. interi_Ill relief
~traight away and ·1eave it_ to.·the~respondents to h_ave the interim order·
· vacat'=<! may j:::opJ.rdi'>e th~ p_ublic-interest- [346G-J47A]
. .· . '·
.
- ' '' . . ~ .

..
·
.~ _3. -1{3.n intenm or:ler. is one.! m1d6 by· a cou'r"t, parties 'employ every_
-device and· tactic to wa~ off the final hearing or ~he applicatioa. · It ·is the~eT'.
fore. necessary for ·the courti to be circumsp.:ct in the matter or granting
. in~erim relier. more particularly·so where the interi~ relief is direcied against.: · ·,
:0rders Ur actions of public officials actipg in discharge of their public duty _and·
·in' exercise Or statutory powefs. C347BJ ·..
.. , .
-~ . .
·. . -· .
. .
. . ·. ·E
:·;In th~ instant case, :no inierim relier Should hav~ been grantCd by the High
1

·. ··Collft. The. futerim, order iS Of a drastic character With ·a great potential for
~ mischief and ·has. the effect or prcictically _aIJOwing the writ petition at the stage
·Or admission wit!loUt hearing the. a·ppo~ire
. . . ·P<irties. [347C, 3460]
·F
_/ <
- 4. The application JO cOmmit the allthoritie~ for' cOntelnpt of court appe•
.ars tO bC a'dcvice to ex~ct licences frOm ·tbeln~ [349BJ: ·
:

. In the-instant case.- th~ stJ.y of the o~eration of the •abeyanCe' orde-r merely
..
mei"nt that the \Vrit petitionCrs were entitled .-to have their applications disposed
or bY- the coOcerned -authori!ies. The Hi_gh Court nOt haVing· .set .any Jiritit- Or .
..time for the disposal or the appJic:i.tiOns.· it ·was -not for the writ petitioiiers tO
'Jrllpo'ie ~time liffiit and demand that their applicatioris should be disPQ.sed 'of
fofthwith •. If-the writ petltion~rs were aggrieved by the failure of thC aUtho.ri· .
-tieS to dispose Pf the~r ap'plication3 expeditiously, _it was open to them to seek a H.
furth_:r direction from the court fixing a limit of_ time Within which the aPplica·. . !' ·
. tion!i wer~ to be disJ,OSed of. [348G.J49A] . - . ' \
. l . . . . ,' • ~ . -

•
944 . Sl(PR~MB COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R:
' ''
C1viL APPELl;ATB JURISD\CTION : Civil Appeal
No. 19'./2 of 1983
From the Judgment and o'rder dated 22.11.83 Of the Calcutt:¥
High Court in Civil Rule No. 10933 Wof 1983 and order is.suillg. ,
conte!llpt notice dated 3:2.84 being Civil Rule No. 571 w.of 1984.

· Milon K. Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General, · A.K.
Ganguli an4 R.N. Poddar for th~ appellauts. ·

. Soli J. Sorabjee, Mrs. Manik Karanjawa!a, Ratan Karanjawala.
Ku/deep Pablay, Sumit Kacliawha and Dr. Roxana Swamy for the
respondents.
.
A. Subba Rao for STC .
•
The Order of the Court was delivered by
D
. CHINNAPPA REDDY J: We. grant .special leave and· procee<l ·
to dispose of the -appeal.
' · M/S. Oswal Woollen Mills Limited having its registered office
at Ludhiana in the State of Punjab and a branch office-at Calcutta,
and Narayan Das Jain, Secretary of the Company have filed a wtit. /a
petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking· variom; reliefs against . 1.. _
the Union of India (through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce,
New Delhi), the Chief Controller ·of Imports and-Exports, New
Delhi, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar, ,
·'the Collector of Customs, Calcutta and the. State Trading Corpora- .
J! tion of India, New Delhi. The ·primary prayer in the writ petition-"
is to prevent or to quash an apprebend.ed or purported action under·
clause 8-B of the Import Control 'Order. All the other reliefs sought
in. the writ petition revolve round the principal_ relief regarding clause-
8-B.of the Import Control Order. The other prayers are either-
ancillary or inc.idental to the principal prayer or are of an inter-'
G
locutory charar.tor. Having regard to the fact that the registere<i
office of the company is at Ludhiana and the principal respondents.
against whom the primary relief is sought are· at New Delhi, one
would liave expected the writ petition to be filed either in. the Higlh
Court of Punjab and Haryana or in the Delhi High Court. The writ ,';-
II petitioners however have chosen the Galcutta Hiih Court as· the-
forum perhaps because one of the interlocutory reliefs which is sought
is i:n respect of a consignment of beef tallow which has aqived at the ·
\
'

•
UNION v.. OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS (Chinnapa Reddy, J.) 345

Calcutta Port. An inevitable result <;>f the filing of writ petitions A
-elsewhere than at the place where the concerned offices and the
relevant records are located is to delay pro111pt return and contest.
We do not desire to probe further into the question whether the writ_
. petition was filed by design or accident in the Calcutta High Court
when the ot)ice ~f the company is in the State of Punjab and all the B
principal respondents are in, Delhi. But we do feel d.isturbed that
sue!) writ petitions are often deJibetately filed in .distant High
Courts, as part of a manoeuvre"in a legal battle, . so as to render it
difficult for the officials at Delhi to move applications to vacate stay
where it becomes necessary to file such applications. More about .
this later. · C

It appears· that an order under clause 8.-B of the Import Control
Or.der·had been made against the company on Nove~ber 9, 1983,
but the writ petition was filed a~·if the order was in the offing and
might be· made at any time, The writ petition was apparently filed
in professed or real ignorance of the order made under clause 8-B of D
the Import Conirol Order. · ..

a
On November 22, 1983, learned single judge of the Calcutta'
High Court issued a rule Nisi and granted an interim order in the
following terms:.
E
"There will be ·an interim order of stay/injunction in
terms of prayers {j), (.kl, (I) and (ii) of the writ petition till
the disposal of the rule. Liberty is given to the respondents
to app1y for vacation or va~iation".
• F
The rule was made returnable on January 31, 1984. Pl-ayers •
-
.
(j), (k), (!) and (n) of the petition were !iJr .the grant of:-

"(j)-Injuction restraining the respondents their ser-
vants and/or agents from· filing any criminal' complaint G
against the petitioners or any of its director or employees from
initiating any departmental proceedings under the Import and
Export (Control) Act, 19-17 and Import (Control) Order, 1955
against the petitioners or.any of its Directors or Employees
till the-disposal of the Rule; ·
II ...
(k)__:Injuction restraining the respondents from issuing
an order of abeyance under clause 8· B oHhe lmport Control
•
346 . SUP!l.EME C0URT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.

A Order, 1955 and/or from taking any·action under such o"rder
of abeyance till the disposal of the rule ; ·
•
(!)--Mandatory ordet directing tbe respondent ,No.5
Coflector of Customs to permit the petitioners t_o .re-export
the consignment of inedible Beef Tai low in terms of I.T.G;
8'
Public Notice No.37 of 19.83 dated l.9.83 with respect to the
consignment weighing 456.316 MT which is.lying at Calcutta
under section A9 of the Customs Act; ·

. (n)-An order that pending the hearing and final dis- ·
C posal of this writ petifion the pefitioners be perm1ited to re-
·Ship and/or re-export the consignment of 456.216 MT of
inedible Beef Tallow which arrived at Calcutta as more
part\cular:y. menticihcd in Annexure T."

()
It is obvious that· the. interim order is of a drastic character
·with a great potential for mischief. The principal prayer _in the writ
peiition is the <:hallenge to the .. order !'lade or propo.sed to be made
under clause 8-B of the Import Control Order. The interim order.
in terms of prayers (j) and (k) has the effect (If practically allowing
the writ petition at the stage of admis,ion without hearing the oppo-
E' ,siie parties. While we do not wish to .say that a drastic inte-rim
order may_never be passed without hearing the opposite parties even_
if the circumstances ju;tify it, we arc very firmly of the opinion that
a statutory
.. order sc:ch as the one made
~ ·. iri \he present case unde'r
- clause 8-B of the Import Control Order ought not to have been siayed
•
.

· without at least hearing tl10se that made the order. Such a stay m;;y
F lead tq devastating consequences leaving ·no way of undoing tl\e
·mischief. Where a plentitude of power is given under.a statute,
designed to meet a dire situation, it is nq answer to say that the very
nature of the po,ver and the con~equences \\'hich may ensue is itself
a sufficierit justification for. the grant of a stay of that order, unless,
of course, there are stlfficient circun1stances to justify a strong prhna
0
•
G facie inference that the otaer was made in abuse of the power
conferred by _tbe statute. A statutory order such as the one under
clause 8--B purports. to be niade in the public interest and uni em there
are even stronger gro.unds of public interest an exp-arte interim order
will not be justified. The only appropriate order to make. in such· .
. Ho cases is to issue notice.to the respondents and make. it returnable
within a· short period. This should partii;ularly. be so. where the
-offices of the principal respondents and ·relevant records lie outside
•
-·
'
UNIO'.'l v. OSWAL WOOLLEN.MILLS (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 347

1he ordinary .jurisdiction bf ihe court. To grant interim relief
<11traight away and leave it to the respondents to move the court to
vacate the interim order may jeopardise the public interest. It is A.
notorious how if an interim order is once made by a court, partieg
. i:mploy every device and tactic to ward off the final hearing· of th~
application. It is, therefore, necessary for the courts to be circum-
·spect in the matter of granting interim relief, more particularly so.
where _the .interim relief isodicected against orders or actions.of public B
-Officials acting in discharge of their public dut)* and in exercise of
·statu,tcrry powers. On the facts. and circumstances of the present
case, we are satisfied that no interim rnlief should have been granted
by the High Court in the terms in w.t.ich it wa,s <lone.

c
Orders. under .clause 8-B of the Import Control Order, similar
·to the.one made against Oswal Woollen Mills Limited, were made
against various import-export houses and others. Some of. these
-0rders have been questioned by the.affected pa1ties in diff~rent High
.. Courts and, in some cases, interim orders have also· been obtained.
·One such writ petition filed by Liberty Oil Mills Pvt. Limited has
been. transferred to this court from the Bombay High Court at the
instance of the Union of India. The case is novr pending in this
-court and has in fact been heard_· in part by this vary Bench.
Apparently, under the impression that 1ho questions at issue will be E
finally· determined by this court in the c.isc of the Liberty Oil Mills,
the Union of lrtdia aml the other autho1 i~tes do not seem to h_~ve
moved expeditiously to contest the writ petiticllls filed in the H''<l!'h
Courts and to have the interim orders vacated. In the present ca~e.
an application to v~cate the interim order was filed in the Caicutta
Bigh Com£.on February I, 1984. Jn the mean_;,hile; Oswal Woojien F
Mills Limited went on writing letters _and sending telegrams compla'.
. ining ·that the interim orders of the High Court had not been opeyed
,and threatening action for contempt of Court. On January 6, 1984, ·
:ar:i application to commit the Chief Controller of Imp9rts and
Exports and others for contempt of court was filed by the company. G
· Notice to the r'espondents was ·ordered on the same day and on
February 3, 1984, overruling .the request made on behalf of the
respondents that the petition to vacate the interiin order may be ·
hear<) first, the High Court issued a rule in the applic~tion for cont-
.empt of court againsnhc Ch.ief Controller of Imports & Exports H
:and the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and
·~irected them to appear in person on March 6, ]984. Thereupon
the Union oflndia, the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, etc.
-...

348 SUPRIME COURT REPORTS .
' [1984}
.
3 S.C.R... :

A ·have filed tli.e present special leave petition against the interim ordei-c
dated November 22, 191!3. of the Calcutta High Court i~ Civil Ruli:c.
No.10933Wof1983 and the rule for contempt .of court issued on
Februrary .3, 1984 inCivil Rnle No. 571 W ofl984. f..We have beard:
Shri Milon Banerjee, ·learned Additional Solicitor General for the·.
B petitioners and Shri ·Soli Sorai:Jlee, learned senior· Advocate for the
respondents. .
. -
· We have already mentioned. that the High Court \~as not right ·
in granting interim relief in the terms in which it had done so. We~
therefore, vacate the interim order dated November 22, 1983 mad~
c by the Calcutta J:ligh Court. It has been pointed oui to us that .th«
Chie(Cqntroller oflmports &.Exports has himself issued a Public:
••
. N:otice dated 1st September, 1983 permitting re-shipment/re-export
of import consignment which qould not be cleared consequent upon
the Ministry of Commerce Import Trade Control Order No 27/81·
D dated the 24th· August, 1983. The. Public .Notice empowers th"
customs authority to allow re·shipment/re·exp6rt having _regard tO--
the extent to which foreign exchange spent ·on import will be earned
. back and subject to snch other conditions relating .t.hereto as 'the
Customs authority may.impose.· We wish to· make.it clear thaUht:o·
vacating of the interim order.willriot disentitle the writ petitioner!>-
0

E . from seeking and taking advantage of the public notice dateci
Sepiember 1, 1983. • • ,
'..,

In regard to the rule for contempt ofcou;t, we find it difficult
to sustain thesame. Though ordinarily we would hove.· left the.
.
F · matter to be decided by.the High ' Court, -we think .
it unnecessary to·
do so in the present case having regard to the elaborate argument~
addressed to us by bJth parties. The complaint of .the wdt. pe.ti- ·
tioners in seeking the ·rule for contempt of ·court was that the·
authorities had not dealt with. their applications for licences, etc~ .
- despite the .'abeyance' order having been stayed. It is obvious that
G of
the stay ofthe operation the 'abeyance' order merely in~ant that
the writ petitioners wereentitled to havetheir applications disposed
of by the concerned authorities. · The Higi1 Court not having set any-
limit of time for the disposal of the applications, it wasnot for the .
· writ petitioners to impSse ·a time'.limit and d~mmd that their applica-· --f
tions should be disposed of forthwith. If the writ petitioners ·were
H .....
aggrieved by the failure of° their authorities to·. dispose of their
applications expeditiously, it was open to· them to seek a ·further·
direction
. .
from the ·court. to fixing a limit of tim: ·within. which. the:
UNION v. OSWAL WOOI,Ll:N MILLS (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 349:

applications were to- be disposed of. We fail to see how the Chief A.
Controller of Imports & Exports or the Deputy Chief Controller of
Imports & Exports could be said to have committed any contempt
of court, even priifl.a facie, by their mere failure to take action. in
the matter. of the disposal of the applications of the writ petitions.
In the circumstances, we perceive the. application to commit the
authorities for contempt of court to be a device to exact licences R
from them. ·
I

We accodingly allow the appeal, vacate the interim order dated
November 22, 1983 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. ·
10933 Wof 1983 and quash the rule for contempt bf court issued on
February 3, 1984 in Civil Rule No. 571 W of 1984. C

•
Before we part with the 'case ,we may refer to a statement made
by Shri J.P., Sharma, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Ex·
,ports, New Delhi in·th.e affiidavit filed by him before us to the effect
that 'in the larger public interest Government was un~ b le to obey
the interim order and had taken the question to this Hon'ble C.ourt
wl]ich is pending decision shortly'. Torn out of the context in which
•
it was made, the unhappy language in which it has been expressed
is suggestive of contumaciousness on the part· of J.P. Sharma.
However; he.has_ filed further affidavits before us ewlain,ing the
context in which the statement was made and expre5Sing his
unqualified regret. We accept his explanation an<! expression. of
regret. We are satisfied that Shri J.P. Sharma .did not mean what·
the language employed by him suggested. However, we. do wish to
express our disapproval of the language emplQyed which is certainly
· suggestive of contumaciousness. • '·
F

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.

.
..