Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1055 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Narayan Mishra
RESPONDENT:
Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/2003
BENCH:
N Santosh Hegde & B P Singh.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP No.4794 of 2002)
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
Heard learned counsel.
Leave granted
The appellant in this appeal was at the relevant point of
time a member of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service posted as a
Commercial Tax Officer. On the ground that there was an
evasion of commercial tax, he made an attachment order of
certain perishable goods belonging to the respondent-firm
consequent to which the property worth about Rs.2.92 lakhs
belonging to the respondent was attached and kept in Central
Warehousing Corporation, Sheopurkalan. The respondent
preferred a revision petition against the said order which was
allowed in favour of the respondent directing the release of the
goods. But according to the respondent, despite the said order
in revision, the goods in question were not released, therefore,
the respondent was compelled to file a writ petition before the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench. The learned
Single Judge who heard the said writ petition, issued an interim
direction on 11.10.1996 directing release of the goods. Pursuant
to the said direction of the learned Single Judge, the goods were
released on 18.10.1996 but the learned Single Judge during the
final disposal of the writ petition, took a serious view of the
matter and came to the conclusion that the proceedings against
the respondent were initiated without following the process of
law. He also held the appellant before us responsible for the
loss caused to the respondent, hence, while allowing the
petition imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the appellant.
He further directed the State Government to initiate proceedings
according to law, against the appellant herein for his biased act.
Being aggrieved by the said directions of the learned
Single Judge, the appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal
before the Division Bench of the said High Court. The Division
Bench after hearing the parties concurred with the direction
given by the learned Single Judge. However, it observed that
the authorities should proceed untrammelled by the
observations made by the learned Single Judge in the
proceedings which will be initiated against the appellant. It is
against this order of the High Court that the appellant is in
appeal before us.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Initially on a misconception of the provisions of Section
48 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (the
Act) an argument was sought to be advanced before us claiming
protection under the said Section on the ground that the
appellant’s decision was protected under that provision of law.
We do not think that the appellant can claim any such
protection on the facts of this case because the said protection is
available to a civil servant only when he acts bona fide and in
good faith. In the present case, the finding of the two courts
below is to the contrary and for reasons recorded therein.
Therefore, realising the futility of this legal argument, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant then contended that the
Officer concerned at the relevant point of time was a young
civil servant, and by the direction given to the Government by
the courts, his career is likely to be affected, and the alleged act
of the appellant since being remedied, he requested us to take a
lenient view of the matter.
From the tenor of the arguments addressed on behalf of
the appellant, though belatedly, we are satisfied that the
appellant has realised the gravity of his act as also the
consequences of the same, therefore, we think the ends of
justice would be met if the order of the court below is confined
to the costs awarded in favour of the respondent, and without
any further direction. Therefore, taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that
the direction issued to the Government by the learned Single
judge as affirmed by the Division Bench to initiate proceedings
against the appellant in accordance with law, be set aside,
confirming, however, the costs awarded to the respondent.
With the above modifications, this appeal is disposed of.
1
1