A GOVARTHANAN PROPRIETOR Vs. V RAMASAMY CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALE MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has initiated contempt proceedings against the respondent for non-compliance of the order of this court dated 16. 08. 2007 made in W. P. No. 20541 of 2007.

(2.) FROM the averments made in the affidavit, it is given to understand that the petitioner is carrying on business of retail sale dealership of Petroleum and Kerosene for the respondent Oil Company under the name and style of M/s. Sri Astalakshmi Enterprises; necessary wholesale Licence has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and for fire safety norms, Licence No. 1151/2006, dated 14. 12. 2006 has been issued by the Divisional Officer, Tamil Nadu Fire Service Department. It is stated by the petitioner that statutory norms and conditions for obtaining licence have been fulfilled by him and the licences are still in his favour. According to the petitioner, the Kerosene Retail Sale business is carried on with valid licence issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) under the dealership agreement dated 01. 03. 1991.

(3.) 5. According to the petitioner, the respondent has failed to comply with the directions of this court, in the following perspective : (i) The first act of contempt is a clear failure on the part of the respondent to implement the High Court order dated 16. 08. 2007 within four weeks from the date of order without obtaining any clarification order for extension of time to implement the court orders from the concerned court. (ii) The second act of Contempt as apparent on record is the conduct of the respondent in adopting a contumacious, deliberate and willful conduct by calling for fresh documents vide his letter dated 12. 10. 2007 into re-opened Show Cause Notice SKO/133 enquiry much after receiving/considering the petitioner's defence reply dated 19. 09. 2007. (iii) the third act of Contempt is the passing of the final order dated 12. 11. 2007 of termination of dealership by the respondent beyond the time limit prescribed by this court despite communication of a written Notice dated 19. 10. 2007 by the petitioner that such a course would attract the consequential action of contempt of court. (iv) the fourth act of contempt is clearly evidenced by the fact that the respondent has gone behind the clear terms of the order dated 16. 08. 2007. The respondent did not approach the High Court for any clarification but proceeded to issue another Show Cause Notice dated 12. 10. 2007 without passing final orders as directed by the High Court. The letter dated 12. 10. 2007 issued by the respondent to the applicant clearly reflects the most callous, casual approach and clear violation of the binding directions of the High Court. (v) The fifth act of contempt is that though this court in W. P. No. 20541 of 2007 had directed the respondent to pass order to the Show Cause Notice in Ref. No:SKO/133 within a period of four weeks, no such order was passed by the respondent, because no flaw could be found to the reply given by the petitioner. In all, the petitioner would contend that the order of termination of dealership is in violation of this Court dated 16. 08. 2007 and that it amounts to contempt of court.