SUKADEV SINGH Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUBLIC Transport Services Association, an association registered under the Societies Registration Act. XXI of 1860, and the owner of a public carrier, filed a writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution which came to be registered as O. J. C. No. 1352 of 1980. Nine public carrier operators including Sukadev Singh (petitioner in the contempt proceedings) were added on their application as intervenors in the writ application by order dt. 19 -1 -1981. Petitioners in the writ application alleged that adequate notice had not been given by opposite party No. 3, the State Transport Authority, of the notification bearing No. 1001 dt. 4 -7 -1980 inviting applications from intending applicants for inter -State routes under the Central Zone Permit Scheme and, therefore, applications submitted by operators pursuant to the notification under Annexure -1 should not be considered and a mandatory direction be given for wide publication of the notice in the official Gazette as also in local newspapers. The said writ application was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 16th of March, 1981 = (Reported in ILR (1981)1 Cut 295). This Court indicated: -

(2.) THERE is no dispute before us that the Minister was aware of an existing judgment. In fact, the notings in the very file which was sent to him from the Transport Authority clearly indicated that there was a decision which required disposal of the applications by a particular date. The Minister of Transport at the relevant time was also Minister of Law. Sri Patnaik before becoming Minister had put in more than 25 years of practice at the Berhampur Bar. His plea in para 4 of his show cause is . -

(3.) THIS provision came into the statute with effect from 3rd Mar. 1981, when the Amending Act 3 of 1981 was first published in the Orissa Gazette. Sub -Section (1) is relevant. It empowers the State Government to issue orders or directions of a general character in respect of any matter relating to road transport. It is difficult to comprehend that in exercise of this power, the 'State Transport Authority could be asked to reject all the applications that it had received pursuant to an advertisement issued by it. Appellate and revisional powers have been separately conferred on an authority other than the State Government to deal with appeals and revisions relating to the grant or refusal of permits. The Minister should have got the matter examined to find out whether he could make an order of the impugned type in exercise of this power. Conceding that Section 43 -A enabled the order to be made, the power could not be exercised after there was a binding decision of the Court in the field which directed otherwise. Within the framework of the Rule of Law which the Constitution has established in our country, harmony can be maintained only when the legal procedure is followed and conflict is avoided. When disputes cognizable in a Court arise, the determination by the Court in the process laid down by law becomes binding subject to change of the law by the appropriate Legislature within the limits set by well -recognised principles or reversal of the decision in appeal or revision. It is the duty of every citizen and the obligation is all the more in respect of people saddled with the responsibility of running the administration to honour binding decisions and allow them to operate; otherwise chaos is bound to enter into the frame of society. The order made by Sri Patnaik has given rise to a situation of direct confrontation with the pronouncement of the Court. There is no material before us for which it can be held that the Minister was absolutely innocent or in making the order, he had committed a bonafide mistake. There is no scope for doubt that in violating the binding direction of this Court and in interfering with the process of execution of this Court's direction. Sri Patnaik committed contempt. We are inclined to agree with the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Secretary of the Transport Authority that he was in a dilemma as he had two contradictory orders to execute, one being the order of the Court and the other, the direction of the State Government purporting to be under Section 43 -A of the Act. He had been processing the applications for disposal in terms of the Court's order when the Minister intervened and gave a contradictory direction. We are inclined to accept the plea advanced by the Secretary of the Transport Authority that he never had any intention to commit contempt of this Court's order, and placed in the embarrassing situation that he was, he had preferred the Government direction to the Court's order. He has also tendered unconditional apology. In the circumstances, we are prepared to discharge the proceedings so far as he is concerned.