MUNNA LAL KAROSIA Vs STATE OF M.P. .
Bench: SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,H.L. GOKHALE
Case number: C.A. No.-005865-005865 / 2012
Diary number: 956 / 2006
Advocates: S. K. VERMA Vs
B. S. BANTHIA
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5865 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.1673/2006)
MUNNA LAL KAROSIA Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) NO.18120/2006, Civil Appeal NO.4665/2006 and
Civil Appeal NO.3510/2007
O R D E R
SLP(C) No.1673/2006:
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant at length. A bare perusal of the impugned
order passed by the High Court indicates that
although stigmatic remarks have been made against
respondent No.6, he was neither present nor heard.
The impugned order would have serious adverse civil
consequences on the appellant. Such an order could
not have been passed without compliance with the
rules of natural justice. On this short ground, in
our opinion, the order passed by the High Court
Page 2
2
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order
passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the
appeal is allowed.
Application for impleadment is dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4665/2006:
The appellant herein was respondent No.1 in
Contempt (Civil) Petition No.335/2006 before the
High Court. It appears that the order dated
18.11.2005 passed by the High Court, was the subject
matter of the SLP(C) No. 1673/2006. In the aforesaid
special leave petition, this Court while issuing
notice on 30.1.2006 directed status quo insofar as
the posting of the petitioner in the above special
leave petition was concerned.
Mr. Tankha, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant merely acted in obedience of the aforesaid
order passed by this Court and restored the position
of Mr. Munna Lal Karosia as it was on 30.1.2006.
However, one Mr. Rakesh Kumar Arya filed a civil
contempt, being Contempt (Civil) Petition No.335 of
Page 3
3
2006 before the High Court. The aforesaid petition
came up for hearing on 12.9.2006. The High Court was
of the opinion that the appellant was aware of the
fact that on 16.1.2006 Mr. Munna Lal Karosia had
already been transferred and relived on 22.12.2005.
In view of the above, the appellant was held guilty
of the contempt. By an order passed today in SLP(c)
No.1673/2006, the order passed by the High court on
18.11.2005 has been set aside. That apart, it
appears to us that the appellant herein had only
acted in obedience of the order passed by this Court
on 30.1.2006. In such circumstances, it would not
be possible to conclude that the appellant had
deliberately disobeyed the directions issued by the
High Court vide its order dated 18.11.2005.
This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the
order passed by the High Court is set aside.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3510/2007:
For the reasons mentioned in the order passed
today in Civil Appeal No.4665/2006, the appeal filed
by the State is also allowed.
Page 4
4
SLP(C) No.18120/2006:
Mr. Jain, learned counsel at this stage
submitted that since the order dated 18.11.2005
passed by the High Court has been set aside in
SLP(C) No.1673/2006 only on the ground that
respondent No.6 was not heard, the matter may be
remanded back to the High Court. We are of the
opinion that after such a long time, it would not be
in the interest of justice to remand the matter back
to the High Court. Accordingly, this special leave
petition is dismissed as infructuous.
.....................J (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)
.....................J (H.L. GOKHALE)
New Delhi; August 6, 2012.