T.C. GUPTA & Anr. v. HARi OM PRAKASH & Ors.

The respondents 1 & 2 filed writ petition in the High Court challenging the acquisition of land belonging to them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court made a query in its order dated 17- 1-2011 requiring the appellants- State officials to·furnish the names of such land owners who had not filed their objections under Section SA of the Act and yet their lands were released from acquisition. However, the information furnished by the appellant in the written statement dated 19-01-2011 was just the reverse i.e. he furnished c information in respect of landowners who had filed their objections. The High Court issued notice to the appellants to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for not furnishing the requisite information to the Court. D The appellant filed affidavit on 28-01-2011 tendering unconditional and unqualified apology, and, in the affidavit filed, also furnished the requisite information. The appellant further stated that the lapse on his part was bona fide and unintentional. The High Court, however, E placing reliance upon email dated 17-01-2011 alongwith attachment sent by the appellant to his subordinate officials, came to the conclusion that the appellants had wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court ·for which they were liable to be punished and accordingly, held the F appellants guilty of commission of contempt. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A reading of the e-mail dated 17-01-2011 G alongwith attachment sent by the first appellant to his subordinate officials, would seem to indicate that on the very day of the order i.e. 17 .01.2011 the first appellant understood the said order to be requiring him to lay before the High Court information as to whether the land H T.C. GUPTA & ANR. v. HARi OM PRAKASH & ORS. 249 owners in favour of whom land has been released had A filed objections under Section SA of the Act or not. This is how the first appellant understood the order of the High Court. At that point of time the order of the Court was not available to the first appellant. On such understanding of the order dated 17 .01.2011 the first B appellant directed the concerned subordinate official to furnish information in the prescribed format in respect of the land owners who had filed their objections under Section SA of the Act so that the same could be placed before the Court on the date fixed. [Para 12] [2S6-B-D] c

1.2. The e-mail dated 17 .01.2011 partially bears out the stand taken by the first appellant that he understood the order of the Court as requiring him to furnish information in respect of land owners who had filed their objections. Admittedly, a copy of the order of the court D dated 17.01.2011 became available to the first appellant only at 6.00 p.m. on 18.01.2011. In his affidavit the first appellant had also stated that it would have been better if, on 19.01.2011, he had sought more time to furnish the requisite information against query No.1. However, he did E not do so as the information in respect of other queries were available. The circumstances in which the events have unfolded, does not lead to the sole conclusion that there was a deliberate or wilful attempt on the part of the first appellant not to furnish the requisite information or F to furnish wrong information to the Court. Rather, it appears probable that the failure to furnish the requisite information to the Court may have been occasioned by a momentary error of judgment on the part of the first appellant. For the said lapse he had tendered his G unqualified apology in the affidavit dated 28.01.2011 along with which he had also furnished the requisite information i.e. name and particulars of the land owners who had not filed their objections under Section SA of the Act. The above situation called for a broad and H 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A magnanimous view of the matter and the acceptance of the unconditional apology tendered. Such a course of action would have better served the dignity and majesty of the institution. In fact, under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Explanation thereto an B apology ought not to be rejected merely on the ground that it is accompanied by an explanation for the lapse that had occurred. The power to punish for contempt is a rare specie of judicial power which by the very nature calls for exercise with great care and caution. The power to c punish for contempt ought to be exercised only where "silence is no longer an option." The conclusion reached by the High Court in the impugned order is not sustainable. The order passed by it is set aside. [Paras 13, 15, 16] [256-F-H; 257-A-D; 258-C-D, E-G] D E F Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 AIR 1965 SC 745: .