Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3731 OF 2018
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 22843 OF 2015 ]
K.K GUPTA & ORS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS
ASSOCIATION & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9310 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3732 OF 2018
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 1865 OF 2016]
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
SLP (C) No. 22843 OF 2015
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved
by the direction dated 28.05.2015 issued by the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Contempt
Petition (COPC) No. 587 of 2014. It was the
allegation of the respondents – writ petitioners that
the policy guidelines dated 17.02.2014 framed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MAHABIR SINGH
Date: 2018.04.17
10:23:18 IST
Reason:
pursuant to the directions issued by the court are in
violation of the spirit of the Judgment dated
17.05.2012. It was also alleged that there is a
2
violation of the interim arrangement made by the
court. In order to appreciate the contention, it is
necessary to extract the operative portion of the
Judgment dated 17.05.2012, which reads as follows :-
“42. Consequently, in view of the
observations and analysis made hereinabove,
the writ petition is allowed. Respondent
No. 1 is directed to take a decision to
notify petroleum, petroleum products and
natural gas within a period of twelve weeks
from today. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are
directed to comply with the action approved
in the meeting held on 9.6.2011, as per
para 7, within a period of six weeks from
today. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 shall
take final decision and issue appropriate
directions/guidelines/instructions on the
opening of new retail outlets. Till then,
the parties are directed to maintain status
quo as of today. Pending application(s),
if any, also stands disposed of. There
shall, however, be no order as to costs. ”
3. We do not think that there is any ambiguity in
the order. The direction was only to frame
guidelines and till the guidelines are framed, there
was a direction to maintain status quo as on the date
of the Judgment.
4. The guidelines were framed on 17.02.2014, as
directed by the High Court and notified on
3
21.05.2014. Paragraph 4D of the guidelines thus
framed, reads as follows :-
“D. Existing Roster of earlier SRMPs and
advertisement of Back Log locations :-
The existing Roster of old SRMPs made
under the earlier guidelines has been
frozen and closed in July 2012. The
locations already advertised and which are
at various stages of commissioning will be
governed as per their advertisement
conditions.
Industry will work out the backlog for
locations under SC/ST category based on
the outlets commissioned/COCO’s divested
and LOI’s issued against advertisement
released after 01.04.2002, under
prevailing Marketing Plans of OMCs and
advertise the same.”
5. The High Court, as per the impugned order in the
contempt petition, took the view that the guidelines
framed by the companies are in violation of the
Judgment. The High Court, in exercise of its
contempt jurisdiction, issued further orders as well.
The order to the extent relevant is at Paragraph 12,
which reads as follows :-
“Thus, in furtherance of implementation of
Judgment of this Court in CWP No. 3723 of
2010 dated 17.5.2012 in letter and spirit,
respondents are directed to consider the
4
old cases, which were pending at the time
of filing of the petition also, as per the
new guidelines. Accordingly, the petition
is disposed of and the notice is
discharged. No costs.”
6. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.
7. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
appellants, and Ms. Vernika Tomar, learned counsel
appearing for the respective respondent(s). As we
have already indicated above, it is very difficult to
appreciate the stand of the High Court that there is
violation of the status quo order granted on
17.05.2012. The direction to maintain status quo was
only till framing of guidelines. Once the guidelines
are framed, the life of the interim order to maintain
status quo also expires and thereafter, the field is
to be governed by the new guidelines framed and
notified on 21.05.2014. If the respondents are, in
any way, aggrieved by the guidelines, it is for them
to pursue appropriate remedy but not proceedings for
contempt. In contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot
expand the scope of the Judgment which is alleged to
have been violated. The Court's jurisdiction in
contempt proceedings is to see whether there is
willful disobedience of any direction or a
5
contumacious attempt otherwise to circumvent the
Judgment. Sans that the rest should be left to the
aggrieved party to pursue the matters in other
appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 28.05.2015 is set aside and the appeal is
allowed as above.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9310 OF 2016 and SLP (C) No. 1865
OF 2016
1. Leave is granted in SLP (C) No. 1865 of 2016.
2. In view of the Judgment passed above, these
appeals are disposed of.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]
.......................J.
[ NAVIN SINHA ]
New Delhi;
April 11, 2018.
6
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22843/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-05-2015
in COPC No. 587/2014 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
At Shimla)
K.K GUPTA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS
ASSOCIATION & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No.134256/2017-EARLY HEARING APPLICATION)
WITH
C.A. No. 9310/2016 (XIV)
SLP(C) No. 1865/2016 (XIV)
Date : 11-04-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
Counsel for the
parties Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Iti Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Darar, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR
Ms. Vernika Tomar, AOR
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, ASG
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv.
Mr. S. A. Haseeb, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bhahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR
7
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP (C) No. 22843 OF 2015
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9310 OF 2016 and SLP (C) No. 1865 OF 2016
Leave is granted in SLP (C) No. 1865 of 2016.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable
Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)