STATE OF M P Vs. L C BAHIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Collector and the Licensing Authority, Gwalior, under the M. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965, Gwalior, made a reference under section 15(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, stating that (i) 'Case No. 7/6x31 of 1983 under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 had been registered against non -applicants Nos. 2 and 3 trading under the name and style of M/s Rajeshwari Rice and Dal Mill, Dabra, and is pending before him; (ii) non -applicant No. 3 had been appearing as an advocate for these non -applicants; (iii) an application dated 7 -4 -1983, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 1 to the said reference, was filed by the non -applicants stating that the Court of Civil Judge Class II at Dabra in a Civil Suit, which had been filed in that Court by non -applicants Nos. 2 and 3, relating to the commodity, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid case before the Collector, had ordered the maintenance of status quo, which, in effect, was an injunction against the Collector restraining him from proceeding with the case pending before him, but, despite the intimation and knowledge of this order, the Collector had been proceeding with the case violating that order, which amounted to a contempt of the Court of the Civil Judge Class II, Dabra; so, in case the further proceedings were not stayed, the non -applicants would be constrained to move the Court of the Civil Judge Class If, Dabra to take action against the Collector under the Contempt of the Courts Act, and (iv) the Civil Court did not order the stay of the proceedings in Case No. 7/6x31 of 1983 before the Collector and, thus, the non -applicants by making the fore -referred application had committed contempt of the Court of the Collector; consequently, a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was issued to the non -applicants, who filed their respective replies (Annexures 3, 4 and 5 to the reference) persisting in their stand that was taken in the fore -referred application instead of being contrite and apologetic.

(2.) THIS Court had issued a notice against the non -applicants to show cause as to why the above reference should not be admitted and proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Contempt Act') be not taken against them. The non -applicants have filed their respective replies denying that they committed any contempt and, inter alia, contended that the Collector functioning under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in his capacity as a Collector -cum -Licensing Authority under the M. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965, is not a Court: hence the question of proceeding under the Contempt Act is not warranted. In the alternative, the non -applicants have submitted an apology.

(3.) SINCE the question whether the Collector and the Licensing Authority functioning under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is a Court, is one going to the root of the matter and is of general importance, we prefer to hear the learned counsel for the non -applicants and the learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State, who has been appearing to assist the Court in the matter.