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 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)