MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a contempt petition filed under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by one Mahendra Kumar bringing to our notice that the non-petitioners-accused have committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the stay order passed by this Court dt. 15-11-1984 which has been marked as Annex-A. It is submitted by the petitioner that a stay application numbered as D.B. Second Stay Application No. 280/1984 was filed and after hearing both the parties this Court passed an order whereby the contemners were directed to prepare the inventory of the liquor incorporating its Brand in the presence of the petitioner-appellant or his representative before the auction of the liquor was made on 16-11-1984.

(2.) It is further stated that the representative of the petitioner submitted an application to the non-petitioner contemner No. 3 on 16-11-1984 before the beginning of the auction. He made a request that before the auction is started the inventory should be prepared brandwise as directed by this Court. However, no heed was paid to his request. Thereafter he gave an application in writing to this effect requesting that inventory of the liquor brandwise lying in the godown may be prepared. It was also stated therein that a copy of the stay order dated 15-11-1984 had already been produced before him. It was also stated in the application that the material was lying with the department since long under its own lock and key and, therefore, it was essential that a list of the liquor brandwise may be prepared in his presence before the auction is made. It was also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 16-11-1984 there were no bidders and, therefore, no inconvenience should have been caused to the contemner No. 3 to prepare the list of liquor brandwise as directed by this Court. It is further stated that at about 5 p.m. on the same day another application (Annx.-C) was moved in writing by the representative of the petitioner requesting the contemner No. 3 repeating that the list as directed by this Court had not been prepared and that he may be informed of any further action that might be taken in this respect. On this application the contemner No. 3 made an endorsement to the effect that since on 16-11-1984 none has appeared to give bid for the auction, hence the auction will again be held on 17-11-1984 at 10.30 a.m.

(3.) Thereafter a telegram marked Annx.-D was sent to the Commissioner, contemner No. 3 informing him that no brandwise list of liquor has been prepared before the auction as directed by this Court in the presence of appellant or his representative and that a direction may be given to the Auctioning Authority to comply with the order of the Court. It is further stated that on the next day, i.e. on 17-11-1984 another application was also given by the representative of the petitioner to the contemner No. 3 stating therein that no list incorporating the brand of the liquor was prepared on 16-11-1984 as directed by this Court and that a copy of the list of the liquor was given to him on 16-11-1984 at about 12.30 p.m. but this list does not show the brand of the stock of the liquor to be auctioned. Various other objections with regard to the list were also raised in this application and it was again requested that a list incorporating the brand of the liquor to be auctioned should be prepared and the auction should be held thereafter. On this application the contemner No. 3 wrote a remark that this application was filed before him at 1.30 p.m. along with eight copies of bills which the petitioner's representative should have filed before the auction was started as per directions of this Court. One lot of the liquor had already been auctioned by this time. The representative of the petitioner Amar Singh was asked to produce credit note regarding the bills as the same were incomplete unless the credit note was also produced. The stock of the liquor was auctioned without preparing any list incorporating the brand of the liquor as directed by this Court. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the non-petitioners-contemners have committed wilful disobedience and shown disrespect to the order dt. 15-11-1984 passed by this Court and, therefore, the contemners be suitably punished for committing the contempt of the order of this Court. Affidavits have also been filed by the petitioner and his representative Amar Singh in support of the application.