TMI Blog1970 (8) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. This petition was admitted on the 29th January, 1965. The Court also made an interim order of stay on that date. That order reads: During the pendency of the application the respondent shall not realise any fees for the use of stands on Rathras Road, Bannadevi Road, Shri Sikandra Rao Road and Chatari Road from petitioners Nos. 2 to 7. According to the version given by Bhagwan Das, Secretary of the Union which has been accepted by the High Court, and in our opinion rightly, a certified copy of the said order was obtained by him from the High Court on the same day, i.e., 29th March, 1965. Bhagwan Das reached Aligarh on the 30th March with that copy. On 31st March, 1965 he went to the office of the Board and handed over to the office a letter addressed to the Officer-in-charge stating that the High Court had stayed the realisation of stand fees in W. P. No. 621 of 1964 but that order was not being obeyed. With that letter he annexed an uncertified copy of the stay order. Bhagwan Das secured from the office of the Board a memorandum acknowledging receipt of his letter. He also showed the certified copy of the stay order to the Executive Officer, the Demand Inspector, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lisation of the stand fee had to be stopped. The Executive Officer reminded the Demand Inspector of his earlier directions by recording on 5th April, 1965: There are orders already on page overleaf, that the orders of the High Court be obeyed. That be done forthwith. Even after this note the Demand Inspector did not realise the urgency of the matter and did not consider it proper to send forthwith and without avoidable delay directions to the relevant octroi posts to stop realisation of stand fees. Such directions were only sent in the afternoon of 6th April, with the result that the stay order made by the High Court on 29th March, 1965 was acted upon only with effect from 7th April, 1965. The stand fee thus continued to be realised as usual till 7th April, 1965 though the Municipal Board and the concerned officers of the Board had been apprised of the orders as early as 31st March, 1965 and the Officer-in-charge as also the Executive Officer had expressly directed that the orders of the High Court be obeyed. 3. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that Bhagwan' Das had not annexed with his letter the certified copy of the stay order and the appellants were the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the attitude in which he persisted till 6th April. Such an attitude cannot be considered bona fide or reasonable on the facts and circumstances of this case. The submission that the stay order is not shown to have been disobeyed because no receipts of realisation of stand-fee from respondents 2 to 7 have been proved is also difficult to accept in face of the evidence of the Executive Officer. He has stated on oath in the High Court, to quote his own words, During the period 1-4-65 and 5-4-65 realisation of taxes must have been as was being done from before. 5. In view of this statement the realisation of stand fee from respondents Nos. 2 to 7 even after intimation of the stay order was given to the Demand Inspector must be considered to have been rightly upheld by the High Court. As a matter of fact the affidavit of Pannalal, respondent No. 7 in this Court which we have no reason to disbelieve also supports this conclusion. It may also be pointed out that in order to justify action for contempt of Court for breach of a prohibitive order it is not necessary that the order should have been officially-served' on the party against whom it is granted if it is proved that he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priate action, within their power, for the performance of| the duty of obeying those orders, they and the corporate body are both guilty of disobedience and may be punished for contempt. The appeal on behalf of the Municipal Board thus also fails' and is dismissed. 7. In regard to the Executive Officer, he seems to have directed the Demand Inspector, who was responsible for collecting the fees, to obey the stay order. His directions seem to us to be clear and unambiguous. After recording his order on 1st April he had to go out of town on official duty and he returned only on 5th April, On his return again he recorded clear instructions categorically directing obedience of the High Court's order. His case is thus clearly distinguishable from that of the Demand Inspector and we are inclined to allow his appeal. He has also offered an unqualified apology. 8. The case against Ahmad Khan, peon, and Hoti Lal, Muharrir or Munshi of the Board also seems' to us to be distinguishable. They were not included in the array of alleged contemners in the original application but were added subsequently by means of an application dated 14m September, 1965. They were duty bound to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
