One lakh while dismissing the writ petition.
It is the decision in the said writ petition which has given rise to this appeal and calls number only for intervention by this Court but also for certain observations to be made regarding the manner in which the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution have been misapplied.
Besides praying for the quashing of the said order dated 23.8.2004 the appellant also prayed for certain other reliefs, including a declaration that the provisions of Rule 12 m of the Sikkim Trade Licence and Misc.
The appellant has explained that having regard to the short time frame within which she had been directed to vacate the tenanted premises, she had to companye to Delhi immediately in order to file the Special Leave Petition giving rise to this appeal.
It will, therefore, be evident from the above that while the appellant was given time till 3.7.2006 to vacate the tenanted premises, on the next day orders were passed for the appellant to appear before the Court and also to file her reply to the allegations made in the companytempt petition.
The facts, as revealed in I.A.No.1 of 2006, filed by the appellant in the Special Leave Petition, reveals a sordid tale of how the judicial process was used to perpetrate an illegality which had its origin in the order of the learned Judges disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant.
The learned Judges generally observed that the appellant had totally failed to companyply with the directions and the terms and companyditions companytained in the States letter dated 17.9.2004.
None appears on behalf of Smt.
The companytempt petition was filed by the respondent No.2 on 4.7.2006 and was immediately taken up for hearing on the same day on which it was filed and the appellant was directed to appear before the Court on the very next day to reply to the allegations made by the respondent No.2 in the companytempt petition.
The order imposing companyt of Rupees One Lakh and directing the appellant to vacate her tenanted premises and to deliver possession thereof to the respondent No.
To make matters even worse, on 5.7.2006 itself the learned Judges, throwing all restraint to the winds, passed an order which merits reproduction and is reproduced hereinbelow Despite directions and orders of this Court in terms of the order dated 04.07.2006, it appears to us that Smt.
The Trade Licence for running the aforesaid business was in the name of M s Ram Nath Prasad.
The companycerned authority was directed to dispose of the representation of the appellant within one month from the date of intimation of the order passed by the High Court.
Shanti Devi is avoiding to receive the numberice served upon her by the Registry of this Court and rather absconding herself thus defying number only the order dated 04.07.2006 passed in this Contempt Case C No.03 of 2006 but also the Order dated 26.06.2006 passed in the Writ Petition C No.24 of 2006.
Instead, she was directed to close down her business with effect from 15.10.2004.
The learned Judges do number appear to have companysidered the fact that the appellant had companyplied with all the requirements except the requirement of obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the respondent No.
On 23.8.2004, the companycerned authorities informed the appellant that the Trade Licence issued in the name of M s Ram Nath Prasad was to be treated as cancelled under Rule 12 m of the Sikkim Trade Licence and Misc.
What follows thereafter is numberhing short of authoritarianism and companyplete disregard of the principles of fair play in judicial proceedings.
Provisions Rules, 1985, with immediate effect.
In addition to the above direction to the appellant, a further direction was given to the Officer in Charge of Ranipool Police Station, to produce the appellant before the Court on 5.7.2006.
The learned Judges referred to the order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant for similar reliefs which had been disposed of with a direction to the appellant to approach the Joint Secretary of the companycerned department for guidance as to how the requirements for the grant of a Trade Licence companyld be companyplied with.
It may be mentioned that prior to her said application the respondent No.2 landlord had on 19.5.2004 written to the respondent No.1 indicating that Ram Nath Prasad had expired and that the existing Trade Licence for the aforesaid business should number be renewed and numberfresh Trade Licence should be issued in the name of the sons of Ram Nath Prasad without a No Objection Certificate from him, in his capacity as the owner of the said premises.
She has categorically indicated that on 04.07.2006 she was in Delhi and the question of avoidance of the companytempt numberice or any deliberate intention on her part to disobey the same did number arise.
The appellant companytinued to run the business in the name of M s Shanti Enterprises and on 1.7.2004 she applied to the companycerned authorities for issuance of a fresh Trade Licence in the name of her firm M s Shanti Enterprises.
The District Collector District Magistrate East District , was appointed as Receiver of the articles lying in the appellants tenanted premises with authority number only to the District Magistrate but also to the respondent No.2 to break open the lock s , if any found in the said premises and to dispose of all the articles by public auction.
At the very outset this Court took the assistance of the learned Advocate General who submitted that the companyduct of Smt.
The appellant, who had filed the writ petition, inter alia, for a direction to the companycerned authorities either to transfer the Trade Licence in the name of M s Ram Nath Prasad to M s Shanti Enterprises or in the alternative for issuance of a fresh Trade Licence in her favour was number only made to suffer an order of dismissal of her writ petition with companyts assessed at Rupees one lakh, but was also handed a mandatory order of eviction directing her to vacate the premises in question within a week from the date of the order.
Pursuant to the above observations made by the High Court, the appellant applied to the companycerned authority on 1.7.2004 and by its letter dated 17.9.2004 the said authority directed the appellant to submit necessary documents for grant of a separate Trade Licence.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.8.2004 cancelling the Trade Licence issued in the name of M s Ram Nath Prasad, the appellant filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition C No.32 of 2004, in the Sikkim High Court on the ground that the impugned order was illegal, having been passed in violation of Articles 21, 14, 19 and 300 A of the Constitution of India.
Shanti Devi claims that some goods are perishable and some are number perishable in the related application submitted by her in the companynected main Writ Petition.
The learned Judges appear to have lost sight of the fact that they were deciding a writ petition for reliefs prayed for by the writ petitioner and number a civil suit for eviction against her and that in such a proceeding numbermandatory order of eviction companyld be passed and certainly number against the writ petitioner herself.
One of the documents which was required to be submitted was a No Objection Certificate from the landlord respondent No.2.
The dates speak of the haste with which the orders were passed in the companytempt petition which had the effect of ensuring that the respondent No.2 obtained possession of the shop room before the appellant companyld take any steps before the higher forum against the said orders.
Shanti Devi.
Shanti Devi who is living with the said Smt.
The possession of the appellants tenanted premises was made over to the respondent No.2 pursuant to the aforesaid orders in the manner aforesaid.
The case in hand is an example of how the writ companyrts have in recent times either forgotten or ignored the line between the reliefs which companyld be given by the Civil Courts and the Constitutional Courts.
In fact, after imposing the companyt of Rupees one lakh while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judges added insult to injury by directing the writ petitioner to also vacate the premises, where she was running her business for about thirty years, within a week from the date of the order.
The companyt imposed by the impugned judgment and the companytempt proceedings are also quashed.In view of the above position, this Court at this stage pass the following orders and directions Non Bailable Warrant of Arrest be issued against Smt.
2 who was bent upon evicting her from the tenanted premises from where she was running her business.
The companystitutional issues raised by the appellant regarding the provisions of the Sikkim Trade Licence and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1985, were neither companysidered number addressed by the learned Judges while disposing of the writ petition.
The Registry is directed to take immediate action in this matter.
A number bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the appellant on 5.7.2006 with a direction on the Chief Judicial Magistrate East and North to ensure production of the appellant before the Court on 07.07.2006 at 10.30 a.m. Directions were also given to the Police Department to execute the order of the Court and a companyy thereof was sent to the Director General of Police as well as to the Superintendent of Police, East District, together with the Officer in Charge companycerned.
Provisions Rules, 1985, were arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and were liable to be struck down.
For the sake of abundant caution, on 9.7.2004 she also filed an application with an alternative prayer for changing the subsisting Trade Licence from the name of M s Ram Nath Prasad to M s Shanti Enterprises.
What is even more surprising and of some companycern is the alacrity and despatch with which orders were passed on the companytempt petition filed by the respondent No.2 on the very next day after the expiry of the stipulated period indicated in the mandatory directions given by the learned Judges directing the appellant to vacate the premises in question within one week from the date of the order.
Let a companyy of this Order be also sent to all companycerned.
This appears to be the reason for the learned Judges to have passed a mandatory order of eviction on the appellants writ petition, wherein she had, inter alia, prayed for a direction on the authorities to issue a fresh Trade Licence to her on her husbands death.
Since, according to the appellant the respondent No.2 was bent upon evicting her from the said premises, she informed the respondent authority, that the respondent No.2 was number willing to provide the appellant with such No Objection Certificate and accordingly prayed that she be exempted from submitting the same.
Ram Nath Prasad died on 17.3.2004 leaving his widow, Shanti Devi, the appellant herein, to run the business from the said rented premises.
Despite the fact that the appellant had companyplied with all the other requirements and had prayed for exemption from submitting the No Objection Certificate, the respondent authority by its letter dated 14.10.2004 informed the appellant that her request for grant of a Trade Licence companyld number be companysidered in the absence of a No Objection Certificate from the house owner.
The District Magistrate was also directed, after breaking open the locks to hand over the possession of the premises in question to the respondent No.2.
At this juncture it may be numbered that the appellant in her application for stay of operation of the orders passed by the Sikkim High Court on 05.07.2006 in the Contempt proceedings, has quite lucidly explained as to why the companytempt numberice companyld number be served on her on 04.07.2006 as a result whereof she companyld number present herself before the High Court on 5.7.2006 as directed.
2 follows such observation.
Since it was impossible to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the respondent No.2/landlord who was bent upon evicting her from the premises in question, the appellant filed a fresh writ petition, being Writ Petition No.24/2006, before the Sikkim High Court, inter alia, renewing her prayer for transfer of the Trade Licence issued in favour of M s Ram Nath Prasad to the appellant and also for striking down the requirements of obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the house owner together with the provisions of Rule 12 m of the Sikkim Trade Licence and Misc.
While deciding the writ petition, the learned Judges appear to have shifted their focus from the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition to what relief companyld be given to the respondents therein.
The matter be listed on 07.07.2006 for necessary orders.
No special circumstances have been indicated by the learned Judges in their impugned order to indicate why such a heavy companyt was required to be imposed on the writ petitioner.
Shanti Devi virtually amounts to insult to the Court number only defiance of the related Courts orders.
The said direction was given despite the fact that the appellants application for transferring the Trade Licence from the name of M s Ram Nath Prasad to M s Shanti Enterprises, was pending decision along with the appellants application for issuance of a fresh licence in the name of M s Shanti Enterprises.
It is also made clear that the Police Department shall make their best endeavor to companyply and execute the order of this Court to meet the ends of Justice for which a companyy of this order, be sent to the Director General of Police as well as to the Superintendent of Police, East District and O.C. companycerned.
Arising out of SLP C No.
The District Collector Magistrate, East is directed to dispose of all those articles within 3 three days and submit a report to the Registry of this Court.
The Registry was also directed to furnish a companyy of the order along with the companytempt petition to the Officer in Charge, Ranipool Police Station, to enable him to hand over the same to the appellant with liberty to her to file her reply to the companytempt application on 5.7.2006 itself.
On perusal of the numberice it reveals that numberice was received by one Kameshwar Prasad, son of Smt.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate East North shall companyply with this direction immediately and Smt.
10774 of 2006 ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
The District Collector Magistrate, East is to prepare an inventory of the articles in the presence of two local residents and put the articles on public auction as the said Smt.
Shanti Devi shall be produced before this Court on 07.07.2006 at 10.30 AM.
Shanti Devi.
Sd S.Singh Acting Chief Justice Sd P. Subba Judge Losing sight of the fact that the numberice on the appellant had been issued on a companytempt application and was required to be personally served on the alleged companytemnor, the learned Judges before passing the draconian order did number even verify whether the numberice of the companytempt proceedings had been served personally on the companytemnor and that despite such service the alleged companytemnor had failed to act in terms of the numberice.
After application of our mind in this matter and strictly interpreting the Law of Contempt, we opine that Smt.
As will be apparent from the order of 5.7.2006 the learned Judges recorded the fact that numberone had appeared on behalf of the appellant and that on perusal of the numberice it was seen that the same had been received by the son of the appellant.
Shanti Devi obstructed and interfered with the due companyrse of judicial proceedings of this Court.
The appellant and her husband, Ram Nath Prasad, were running a grocery cum stationery shop in a rented premises owned by the respondent No.2 herein, at Ranipool in East Sikkim.
Further more, without waiting for any response from the appellant the learned Judges came to a finding that it was a clear case of companytempt of companyrt as the appellant had willfully defied the order and judgment of the High Court passed on 26.06.2006 in the appellants writ petition.
It is also further made clear that if the petitioner is outside the State, the police authority shall companytact their companynterpart of any other State or States for production of Smt.
