Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL  NO.9476 OF 2013

(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.22500 of 2012)

T.C. GUPTA ...  APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS. ...  RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By its order dated 23.07.2012 the High Court of Punjab  

and Haryana has found the appellant guilty of commission of  

contempt in respect of an order dated 18.08.2011 passed in  

Civil Misc. No.10994 of 2011 arising out of Writ Petition (C)  

No.11684  of  2011.   Consequently,  the  appellant  was  

summoned to appear before the High Court on 30.07.2012  

for  hearing  before  pronouncement  of  order  on  the  

1

Page 2

punishment to be imposed.  Aggrieved, the present appeal  

has been filed.

3. The facts that will  be necessary to be noticed are as  

follows:

The  respondent  No.1  herein,  as  the  writ  petitioner,  

instituted a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court  

(C.W.P. No.11684 of 2011) raising a grievance with regard to  

the Final  Development  Plan 2025-AD for Gurgaon-Manesar  

Urban  Complex  published  vide  Notification  No.  CCP  

(NCR)/FDP(G)/2011/1386 dated 24.05.2011.  Specifically,  it  

was contended that Sectors 63-A and Sector 67-A have been  

carved out in the Development Plan contrary to the Zoning  

Regulations  which  are  required  to  be  followed.   The Final  

Development Plan, it may be noticed, is prepared under the  

Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of  

Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to  

as the Act of 1963).

4. Notice on the writ petition was issued by the High Court  

on  8.07.2011.   Thereafter,  on  11.08.2011  Civil  Misc.  

2

Page 3

Application No.10994 of 2011 was filed before the High Court  

for stay of the implementation of the Final Development Plan  

“in  view  of  contemplated  grant  of  licence  to  the  

colonizers/developers/societies.”   On  18.08.2011  the  

following  order  was  passed  by  the  High  Court  in  

C.M.No.10994 of 2011:

“Notice for the date fixed. Mr.  Anil  Rathee,  Addl.  A.G.,  Haryana,  present  in  Court, accepts notice. In the meanwhile,  there will  be status quo as to  allotment as on today.”

5. Though an application to vacate the aforesaid interim  

order was filed by the Respondents in the writ petition the  

interim order was neither vacated nor modified by the High  

Court and continued to remain in force.  While the matter  

was  so  situated  the  appellant  who  then  serving  as  the  

Director  General,  Town & Country  Planning,  Haryana,  had  

granted  a  licence  dated  28.12.2011  for  setting  up  of  a  

Residential Plotted Colony on land measuring 100.262 acres  

falling in Sector 63-A of the Gurgaon-Manesar. The  

aforesaid grant of licence [under the Haryana Development  

3

Page 4

and  Regulations  of  Urban  Areas  Act,  1975]  (hereinafter  

referred to as ‘Haryana Act of 1975’) by the appellant had  

led to the institution of the contempt proceeding in question  

which was registered as C.O.C.P. No.120 of 2012.  The said  

action was initiated on the basis that the grant of the licence  

dated 28.12.2011 by the appellant is in violation of the order  

of the Court dated 18.08.2011.

6. The appellant  had filed his response in the contempt  

proceeding contending that no allotment was made by him  

or by any other authority so as to constitute violation of the  

order of the High Court dated 18.08.2011.  The appellant, in  

his reply,  further  stated that  in  every residential  sector, a  

maximum of 20% of the net planned area was earmarked for  

group housing and 3.5% for commercial  purposes whereas  

for  plotted  residential  colonies  there  was  no  restriction  

except the requirement of a minimum area of 100 acres.  It  

was also stated that while the applications for group housing  

and commercial activities was to be accorded priority on the  

basis of date of application the same was not so in respect of  

applications for plotted colonies which are to be considered  

4

Page 5

and licences are to be granted on fulfilment of the conditions  

prescribed.   It  was  further  stated  by  the  appellant  that  

though  not  specifically  prohibited  by  the  order  dated  

18.08.2011,  out  of  sheer  deference,  no  licence  has  been  

granted  or  contemplated  for  group  housing  

colony/commercial  colony as such licences can be granted  

upto a maximum limit of the net planned areas.  Licences for  

plotted  colonies,  according  to  the  appellant,  stood  on  a  

different footing inasmuch as for grant of such licences no  

ceiling limit exists.  After offering the aforesaid explanations,  

in the penultimate paragraph of the reply the appellant had  

tendered  his  unqualified  and  unconditional  apology in  the  

following terms:

‘It  is  humbly  submitted  that  the  answering  deponent  has  unfailing  regard  for  this  Hon’ble  Court  and  all  others  courts  of  India  and  cannot  think  of  disobeying  any  order  passed  by  the  Hon’ble Law Court.  It is an article of faith for them  to  respect  the  orders  passed  by  the  Hon’ble  Courts. However, if this Hon’ble Court still comes to  the  conclusion that  the  answering  deponent  has  committed  any contempt  of court,  the deponent  tender  unqualified  and unconditional  apology for  the same.’

5

Page 6

7. The High  Court,  on consideration of  its  interim order  

dated 18.08.2011 and response of the appellant referred to  

above,  came  to  the  conclusion  that  its  order  dated  

18.08.2011  has  to  be  understood  to  have  imposed  a  

comprehensive embargo on issuance of all kinds of licences  

and, therefore, the grant of licence dated 28.12.2011, though  

for a  plotted housing colony, amounted to violation of the  

order dated 18.08.2011.  Accordingly, the High Court held  

the appellant guilty of commission of contempt and passed  

orders  for  his  personal  appearance  for  hearing  on  the  

quantum of punishment.

8. We  have  heard  Mr.Goolam  E.  Vahanvati,  learned  

Attorney  General  for  India,  appearing  for  the  appellant,  

Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent  

No.2 and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the  

respondent No.3. None has appeared on behalf of the first  

respondent  i.e.  writ  contempt  petitioner  before  the  High  

Court.  

6

Page 7

9. It  is  the  common  ground  of  the  learned  counsels  

appearing for the contesting parties that the interim order of  

the  High  Court  dated  18.08.2011  had  only  restrained  the  

concerned  authority  from  making  any  allotments.  

Admittedly,  no  allotment(s)  were  made.  There  was  no  

specific  order  prohibiting  the  implementation  of  the  

development plan, though such a relief was prayed for before  

the High Court.  It is urged that the appellant, in his reply,  

had  set  out  the  manner  in  which  he  had  understood the  

order dated 18.08.2011, namely, that the said order had not  

placed any kind of prohibition on grant of licences under the  

Haryana Act of 1975. Yet, out of deference to the order of  

High  Court,  no  licence  either  for  group  housing  or  

commercial  activities  in  either  Sector  63-A  or  67-A  was  

issued or granted and the entire of the earmarked land in  

both  these  sectors  for  Group  Housing  and  Commercial  

purposes  was  kept  vacant.   Only  in  respect  of  plotted  

colonies for which there was no ceiling limit the licence dated  

28.12.2011 was issued.  It is further urged that in the light of  

the specific order passed by the High Court it cannot be said  

7

Page 8

that  the  appellant  or  any  other  person  or  authority  had  

violated  the  same.   It  is  also  pointed  out  by  the  learned  

counsels that, in any view of the matter, the appellant had  

tendered his unqualified and unconditional apology which, in  

fitness of things, ought to have been accepted by the High  

Court. Lastly, the learned Attorney General, by drawing the  

Court’s  attention  to  the  counter  affidavit  filed  before  this  

Court by the second respondent, has submitted that the writ  

petition  itself  had  been  dismissed  by  the  High  Court  on  

30.10.2012 holding that the validity of the development plan  

published  by  the  Government  in  accordance  with  the  

relevant provisions of the Statute is not open to challenge by  

means of a Public Interest Litigation.  It is also pointed out  

that  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  High  Court  has  attained  

finality in law.

10. The  terms  of  the  order  of  the  High  Court  dated  

18.08.2011;  the  averments/statements  made  in  the  

contempt  petition  and  the  reply  thereto  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant as well as the subsequent facts placed before us  

have  received  our  due  and  anxious  consideration.   The  

8

Page 9

interim order of the High Court had directed status quo to be  

maintained  in  respect  of  allotments.   Admittedly,  no  

allotments  had been  made  by the  appellant  or  any other  

authority.  A contempt action being in the nature of quasi  

criminal proceeding the degree of satisfaction that must be  

reached by the Court to hold a person guilty of commission of  

contempt  would  be  akin  to  what  is  required  to  prove  a  

criminal  charge,  namely,  proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  

The order of the Court in respect of which violation is alleged  

must, therefore, be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and  

defiance thereof must be apparent on the very face of the  

action with which a contemnor is charged.  An interpretation  

of the terms of Court’s order in respect of which disobedience  

is  alleged  would  not  be  appropriate  while  dealing  with  a  

charge of contempt.  Such a charge cannot be brought home  

by unravelling the true meaning of the Court’s order by a  

subsequent order when there is an apparent ambiguity, lack  

of clarity or dichotomy in the initial order.  In a situation like  

the present where the High Court had directed maintenance  

of status quo as to allotment when the interim prayer was to  

9

Page 10

stay the implementation of the final development plan “in  

view  of  contemplated  grant  of  licence  to  the  

colonizers/developers/Societies” it was not open for the High  

Court  to  hold  the  contemnor  guilty  of  commission  of  

contempt by understanding the order dated 18.08.2011 to  

mean status quo or a restraint in respect of grant of licences  

under the Haryana Act of 1975.

11. In an earlier part of the present order, we have noticed  

the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the  

appellant before the High Court in the event his explanations  

were to be found unacceptable.  The explanation to Section  

12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,  makes it clear that  

an apology tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected  

merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional so long  

it is made bona fide.  In his reply, the appellant, after offering  

his  explanations,  had  tendered  his  unconditional  and  

unqualified  apology in  the  event  the  explanations  did  not  

commend for acceptance of the High Court.  In the decision  

rendered  in  O.P.Sharma  and  Ors. Vs. High  Court  of  

10

Page 11

Punjab and Haryana1, this Court has already held that in  

view of the explanation to Section 12 of the Contempt  of  

Courts Act an apology ought not to be rejected only on the  

ground that it is qualified so long as it is made bona fide.  In  

the present case there is nothing on record to suggest that  

the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the  

appellant in his reply before the High Court was actuated by  

reasons that are not bona fide.

12. It has also been noticed by us that the writ petition in  

which the interim order dated 18.08.2011 came to be passed  

has been finally terminated by an order dated 30.10.2012  

dismissing the writ petition and also that the said order has  

attained finality in law.  This is another relevant circumstance  

that cannot be ignored though we should not be understood  

to be saying that all cases of dismissal of the writ petition, by  

itself,  would  absolve  a  contemnor  of  the  charge  of  

commission  of  contempt  in  respect  of  an  interim  order  

passed while the writ petition had remained pending.

1 (2011) 6 SCC 86 [para 34 and 35]

11

Page 12

13. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the  

order  dated  23.07.2012  passed  by  the  High  Court.   We  

accordingly set aside the said order dated 23.07.2012 and  

allow the appeal.

...………………………CJI. [P. SATHASIVAM]

.........……………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

New Delhi, October  25, 2013.

12