Supreme Court of India
K. K GUPTA & ORS. versus HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS ASSOCIATION & ANR. on 11 April 2018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 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 – Scopeof – Writ petitions filed by respondents – By order dtd. 17.5.12,High Court passed direction to frame guidelines and till theguidelines were framed, there was a direction to maintain status quoas on the date of the judgment – Guidelines framed – RespondentsDfiled contempt petition alleging that the said guidelines were inviolation of judgment dtd. 17.5.2012 – High Court held that theguidelines framed were in violation of the judgment and issuedfurther orders as well – Held: There was no violation of the statusquo order granted on 17.5.2012 – Direction to maintain status quowas only till framing of guidelines – Once the guidelines wereEframed, the life of the interim order to maintain status quo also expiredand thereafter, the field was to be governed by the new guidelines –In contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of thejudgment which is alleged to have been violated – Impugned orderis set aside.
F
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is very difficult to appreciate the stand of theHigh Court that there was violation of the status quo order grantedon 17.05.2012. The direction to maintain status quo was only tillframing of guidelines. Once the guidelines were framed, the lifeGof the interim order to maintain status quo also expired andthereafter, the field was to be governed by the new guidelinesframed and notified on 21.05.2014. If the respondents are, in anyway, aggrieved by the guidelines, it is for them to pursueappropriate remedy but not proceedings for contempt. In H
K. K GUPTA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERSASSOCIATION
contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of theJudgment which is alleged to have been violated. The Court’sjurisdiction in contempt proceedings is to see whether there iswillful disobedience of any direction or a contumacious attemptotherwise to circumvent the Judgment. Sans that the rest shouldbe left to the aggrieved party to pursue the matters in otherappropriate proceedings. [Para 7][1007-C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3731of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2015 of the High Courtof Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in COPC No. 587 of 2014.
WITH
C. A. No. 9310 of 2016 and C. A. No. 3732 of 2018
Tushar Mehta, Sandeep Sethi, ASGs, Ravi Prakash, Ms. ItiAgarwal, Ankit Jain, Mohit Darar, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Vernika Tomar,Ritesh Kumar, Mukul Singh, S. A. Haseeb, Raj Bhahadur Yadav, KaushalYadav, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J.
SLP (C) No. 22843 OF 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the directiondated 28.05.2015 issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimlain Contempt Petition (COPC) No. 587 of 2014. It was the allegation ofthe respondents – writ petitioners that the policy guidelines dated17.02.2014 framed pursuant to the directions issued by the court are inviolation of the spirit of the Judgment dated 17.05.2012. It was alsoalleged that there is a violation of the interim arrangement made by thecourt. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to extractthe operative portion of the Judgment dated 17.05.2012, which reads asfollows :- “42. Consequently, in view of the observations and analysismade hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. RespondentNo. 1 is directed to take a decision to notify petroleum,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Apetroleum products and natural gas within a period of twelveweeks from today. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed tocomply with the action approved in the meeting held on9.6.2011, as per para 7, within a period of six weeks fromtoday. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 shall take final decisionand issue appropriate directions/guidelines/instructions onBthe opening of new retail outlets. Till then, the parties aredirected to maintain status quo as of today. Pendingapplication(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. TheCdirection was only to frame guidelines and till the guidelines are framed,there was a direction to maintain status quo as on the date of theJudgment.
4. The guidelines were framed on 17.02.2014, as directed by theHigh Court and notified on 21.05.2014. Paragraph 4D of the guidelinesDthus framed, reads as follows :- “D. Existing Roster of earlier SRMPs and advertisement ofBack Log locations :- The existing Roster of old SRMPs made under the earlierEguidelines has been frozen and closed in July 2012. Thelocations already advertised and which are at various stagesof commissioning will be governed as per their advertisementconditions.
Industry will work out the backlog for locations under SC/STcategory based on the outlets commissioned/COCO’s divestedFand LOI’s issued against advertisement released after01.04.2002, under prevailing Marketing Plans of OMCs andadvertise the same.”
5. The High Court, as per the impugned order in the contemptpetition, took the view that the guidelines framed by the companies areGin violation of the Judgment. The High Court, in exercise of its contemptjurisdiction, issued further orders as well. The order to the extent relevantis at Paragraph 12, which reads as follows :- “Thus, in furtherance of implementation of Judgment of thisCourt in CWP No. 3723 of 2010 dated 17.5.2012 in letterH
K. K GUPTA v. HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS1007ASSOCIATION [KURIAN, J.]
and spirit, respondents are directed to consider the old cases,which were pending at the time of filing of the petition also,as per the new guidelines. Accordingly, the petition is disposedof and the notice is discharged. No costs.”
6. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.
7. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral appearing for the appellants, and Ms. Vernika Tomar, learnedcounsel appearing for the respective respondent(s). As we have alreadyindicated above, it is very difficult to appreciate the stand of the HighCourt 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.Once the guidelines are framed, the life of the interim order to maintainstatus quo also expires and thereafter, the field is to be governed by thenew guidelines framed and notified on 21.05.2014. If the respondentsare, in any way, aggrieved by the guidelines, it is for them to pursueappropriate remedy but not proceedings for contempt. In contemptjurisdiction, the Court cannot expand the scope of the Judgment which isalleged to have been violated. The Court’s jurisdiction in contemptproceedings is to see whether there is willful disobedience of any directionor a contumacious attempt otherwise to circumvent the Judgment. Sansthat the rest should be left to the aggrieved party to pursue the matters inother appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order dated28.05.2015 is set aside and the appeal is allowed as above.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9310 OF 2016 and SLP (C) No. 1865 OF
1. Leave is granted in SLP (C) No. 1865 of 2016.
2. In view of the Judgment passed above, these appeals aredisposed of.