HARI LAL DIXIT Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued by this Court on the 16th September 1954 calling upon the respondents to appear and show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of this Court.

(2.) It is desirable to mention at the outset the circumstances in which it becomes necessary for this Court to issue this Rule. On the 14th September 1954 there were on that day's cause list for hearing and final disposal two appeals, being - 'Saghir Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh', and - 'Mirza Hasan Agha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh', AIR 1954 SC 728. A large number of writ petitions, 224 in number, under Article 32 of the Constitution raising the same questions were also on the cause list for that day. Both the appellants and all the petitioners were engaged in carrying on businesses as carriers of passengers and goods by motor buses or lorries on different routes under licenses issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh and in cases where the route passed into or through the State of Delhi, countersigned by the State. Some of these persons had originally been granted permanent permits by the Regional Transport Authority. Pursuant to the policy of nationalisation of road transport business the State of Uttar Pradesh made declaration under section 3 of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Act, 1950 to the effect that road transport services on certain routes should be run and operated by the State Government in the manner mentioned in the relevant declarations and it also published schemes of road transport services under Section 4 of that Act. In furtherance of its object the State Government began to serve notices on the licensees to stop plying buses on specified routes. The appellants thereupon applied to the Allahabad High Court for a writ of 'mandamus' directing the State Government and its Minister of Transport to withdraw the declaration made under the section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Roads Transport Act, 1950 in respect of their respective routes and directing them and their officers to refrain from proceeding further under sections 4 and 5 of that Act and not to interfere with the operation of their respective stage carriages and for other ancillary reliefs. By an order made on the 17th November 1953 the Allahabad High Court dismissed those applications. The two petitioners there upon filed these two appeals in the Court after having obtained a certificate from the Allahabad High Court under Article 132(1) of the Constitution. The appellants obtained orders for stay of proceedings until the determination of their appeals. In view of the decision of the Allahabad High Court many other persons holding licenses for plying motor stage carriers or contract carriages came direct to this Court with applications under Article 32 for appropriate writs and obtained interim stay. As already stated, the two appeals and all those numerous applications were posted on the cause list for the 14th September, 1954 for final disposal. The respondent Hira Lal Dixit was the petitioner in one of those writ applications. The two appeals were called on for hearing on that day and were part-heard. The hearing continued for the whole of the 15th and 16th September, 1954 and was concluded on the 17th September, 1954 when the Court took time for considering its decision. The Court has not yet delivered its Judgment. A large number of persons, presumably, the petitioners in the writ petitions or otherwise interested therein, attended the Court on all the dates, for the result of the decision of the appeals would also conclude the writ petitions. It appears that on the 15th September, 1954 a leaflet printed in Hindi language and characters, consisting of 18 pages, intituled "Hamara Vahan Vibhag" meaning "Our Transport Department", purporting to be written by the respondent Hira Lal Dixit and containing foreword purporting to be written by Sri Krishna Dutt Paliwal and a block photograph of the respondent Hira Lal Dixit on the front page was distributed in the Court premises. The leaflet contained a graphic account of the harassment and indignity said to have been meted out to the writer by the State officers and the then State Minister of Transport in connection with the cancellation and eventual restoration of his license in respect of a passenger bus. The second paragraph on page 15 of that leaflet contained a passage of which the following is an English translation prepared by an Advocate of this Court duly authorised in that behalf.

(3.) All the respondents have been duly served. They have filed affidavits and have appeared before us by their respective Advocates. The respondent Sri Krishna Dutta Paliwal, the writer of the foreword, who was present in Court, made the following statement to the Court through his Advocate Sri Mohan Lal Saksena: