Gupta Sales Corporation vs D.V.B. and Others

Gita Mittal, J.—By this petition u/s 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 the petitioner has alleged wilful disobedience, violation and defiance of the orders dated 6th April, 1995 and 18th October, 1995 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 916/1994 effected by the respondents on 13th August, 1999 and 27th August, 1999.

The petitioner was carrying out its business under the name and style of Gupta Sales Corporation at the Industrial Premises A-106, Wazirpur Industrial Area and was holding an industrial electricity connection bearing No. XI-1675. A wholly baseless bill was raised upon the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs. 23,56,000/- in respect of the electricity consumption was raised upon it. Alleging non-payment of this bill claimed arbitrarily, electricity to the premises of the petitioner was disconnected in August, 1993. The petitioner impugned the action of the respondent in a proceeding before the trial court. Orders passed therein were impugned before this Court by the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in Civil Revision No. 916/1994.

Vide an order dated 6th April, 1995, this Court directed the Director, EDP of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking to grant hearing to the Gupta Sales Corporation and pass a reasoned order. Liberty was given to the petitioner to take all pleas available to it before the Director, EDP. The hearing was fixed for 11th April, 1995.

The order dated 6th April, 1995 directed thus:

6.4.1995

Present: Mr. B.C. Pandey, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jagdeep Kishore for the respondent.

C.R. 916/94 & C.Ms. 3776-3777/94

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the Director, E.D.P. To grant hearing to the respondent Gupta Sales Corporation and pass a reasoned order. The respondent would be at liberty to take all pleas available to the petitioner on 11th April, 1995 at 3.00 p.m. at Sharam Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi.

List this matter for further directions on 18th April, 1995.

Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned Counsel for the parties.

Sd/-

Dalveer Bhandri, Judge.

Pursuant to the order dated 6th April, 1995 and hearing given thereupon, the Director EDP passed an order dated 24th April, 1995 noticing that in the inspection conducted dated 4th November, 1986 and 17th August, 1987, no misuse was found. He directed modification of the bill raised upon the petitioner and correction of the penalties imposed on 2nd June. The Director (EDP) held that misuse could have been levelled only for the period November, 1986 to August, 1987. Based on the order dated 1st September, 1995 passed by the Director EDP, the court recorded the agreement between the parties that the electricity undertaking would prepare a revised bill and that the petitioner herein would pay the amount thereof and complete all formalities whereupon the electricity would be restored within three days. In case of dispute to the correctness of the bill, liberty was given to the petitioner to deposit the amount under protest vide orders dated 18th October, 1995 disposing of CR No. 916/1994.

It is necessary to examine the order dated 18th October, 1995 closely and consequently the same is reproduced in extenso:

18.10.95

Present: Mr. B.C. Pandey, for the petitioner. Mr. Jagdeep Kishore with Ms. Rekha Gupta for the respondent

CR No. 916 & CM Nos. 3376 & 3777 of 94

It is agreed upon in between the parties that the petitioner would prepare a revised bill on the basis of the order passed by the Director (EDP) dated September 1, 1995 within a week from today. On receipt of the same the respondents would pay the amount of the bill and complete the formalities. The respondent would inform the petitioner about the formalities required to be completed within a week. On deposit of the amount of the bill and on completion of the formalities the electric connection which is lying disconnected would be restored within three days. In case the respondents dispute the correctness of the bill, in that eventuality they will be free to deposit the amount under protest.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Dasti.

Sd/-

Mohd. Shamim, Judge

The petitioner has pointed out that the respondent failed to raise the revised bill within a week as directed. A bill was served upon the petitioner on 23rd November, 1995 with a covering letter dated 21st November, 1995 for the sum of Rs. 1,75,743.74

The respondent failed to restore the electricity within the period of three days of payment of the bill. On the contrary, according to the petitioner, vide a letter dated 30th November, 1995, wholly unnecessary and unwarranted commercial formalities were required to be completed. The petitioner was at pains to point out that the case related to re-connection of an existing connection and as such there was no requirement of a fresh agreement etc as was being demanded.

Without restoring the electricity, the respondents illegally raised an electricity bill for the month of November, 1995 in the sum of Rs. 5,657/- followed by a letter dated 8th December, 1995 threatening disconnection for non-payment of the bill for November, 1995 by 18th December, 1995.

The petitioner is stated to have complied with the wholly unreasonable requirements vide its letter dated 18th December, 1995 and furnished the entire required information and documents to the respondent, and protested against the mode of functioning of the respondents.

According to the petitioner, the respondents disregarded all requests of the petitioner in writing and otherwise and paid no heed to the orders passed by this Court. They refused to restore the electricity despite the specific directions issued on 18th October, 1995. It has been pointed out that the electricity had been disconnected in August, 1993 based on the totally illegal demand of Rs. 23,56,538.81 which was corrected under orders of this Court by the respondent to Rs. 1,75,743.74. Despite payment and submission of all documents by the petitioner, the respondents were not restoring the electricity within the three days period given to them under orders of this Court.

In these circumstances, the petitioner filed CCP No. 411/1996 bringing these facts before this Hon''ble Court and sought action against the respondents who were guilty of the contempt of the orders dated 6th April, 1995 and 18th October, 1995. Upon consideration of the matters, dasti notice was directed to issue on the 19th January, 1996 returnable for 29th January, 1996. One Sh. H.C. Verma, Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Undertaking put in appearance on the 29th January, 1996 and made a statement in the following terms:

29.1.96

Present: Mr. J. Kishore for the Petitioner

Mr. Jayant Nath for the Respondent

CCP 11/96

Mr. H.C. Verma, Assistant Engineer, DESU is present in the Court. On instructions from him, Counsel for DESU states that the electric supply will be restored in the course of the day. The Petitioner is directed to comply with the requirements of submitting proper test report within three days. The direction to file proper test report is being given in view of the submissions made at the bar that the earlier test report was faulty inasmuch as the connected load was to be shown as 100 KW which is equal to roughly 130 H.P. Whereas the sanctioned load was 50 H.P.

Renotify this case on 2nd February, 1996 for compliance.

J.K. Mehra, J.

The petitioner''s electricity was restored on 29th January, 1996.

I find that the statement made on behalf of the respondents was found to be false by this Court and was so noted in the proceedings held on 2nd February, 1996 which were to the following effect:

2.2.96

Present: Mr. Jagdip Kishore for the petitioner

Mr. B.C. Pandey for the respondents.

CCP 11/96

I have heard the parties. The electric connection has since been restored. Mr. Jagdip Kishore has produced documentary evidence to show that the sanctioned electric load was not 50 HP but the sanctioned load was 129.61 HP. This clearly shows that the story for incorrect test report was only manipulation on the part of the Department for which certainly some action is called for. Such conduct on the part of the Department is not acceptable at all. The petitioner has suffered loss on account of non-supply of electricity resulting in denial of opportunity to earn. The allegation of incorrect test report cannot be accepted in the face of such facts as have come to light today. The allegation of the Department that the petitioner had been sanctioned 50 HP is clearly belied by their own documents. The General Manager of DESU is directed to look into this matter and fix the responsibility for such lapse and initiate appropriate action against the erring officer and report to this Court within four weeks of the action that is initiated. On this occasion I am at this stage not inclined to impose any punishment though one is called for in view of the contemners having purged themselves of the contempt. The Petition is disposed of with further orders that it should be listed on 6th March, 1996 for the Department to file affidavit of compliance in terms of this order.

A copy of this order be given Dasti.

Sd/-

J.K. Mehra, Judge.

It becomes necessary to notice the action taken by the respondents and the orders of this Court in the contempt petition in view of the fact that action was apparently commenced by the electricity undertaking against its officers. On 3rd October, 1996, this Court recorded the following order in CCP No. 11/1996:

03.10.1996

Present: Ms. Jaya Kumari for counsel for petitioner

Mr. Jayant Nath for Respondent

CCP 11/1996

Counsel for the Respondent states that the disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated and consequent upon the decision of the proceedings, action has been taken against Mr. Ranbir Singh, the then Junior clerk and Mr. H.C. Verma, Asstt. Engineer. Copy of the order initiating action has also been placed on record.

I have heard the parties. In view of the fact that the guilty officers have already been proceeded against and punishment imposed, I am not inclined to proceed any further with this contempt petition. The same stand disposed of in terms of my earlier order.

J.K. Mehra, J.

The trauma of the petitioner did not end even here though he abided by all the demands made on him thereafter and made every payment.

On 13th August, 1999 the petitioner was sent a letter by Sh. Ajit Singh (respondent No. 2) herein demanding an amount of Rs. 26,48,917.33 being the amount outstanding against his connection up to March, 1999. The petitioner was directed to make payment of this amount by 26th August, 1999 failing which, it was threatened that his electricity supply would be disconnected against non-payment.

By this demand the respondent No. 2 was demanding the same amount which was the subject matter of CR No. 916/1994 which was in apparent disregard and violation of the orders dated 6th April, 1995 and 18th October, 1995 passed in Civil Writ 916/1994 and the orders passed by the Director EDP on 1st November, 1995.

The petitioner was at pains to explain the fact situation to the respondents vide the letter dated 18th August, 1999 which was to the following effect:

To,

Shri Ajit Singh,

The Commercial Officer BS (II),

Delhi Vidyut Board,

Shakti Sadan,

N. Delhi.

Ref: Your letter No. BSR/II/99-2000/432

Dear Sir,

This has reference to the meeting undersigned demanding a sum of Rs. 26,48,970-33 which as per you is outstanding upto March 1999. Actually there is no amount pending to be paid by us. As informed to you when the undersigned met you in this connection we have already paid the revised bill for Rs. 1,75,743-74p. for the period May 88 to Aug.93 on SIP basis and Misuse charges and LIP for the period Nov. 86 to Aug. 87 as per the speaking orders passed by the Director EDP vide Civil Revision 916/94 and nothing remains unpaid. Copy of revised bill and receipt of payment is enclosed.

We hope you will make necessary correction in your record and delete the frivolous demand outstanding against our connection.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

For Gupta Sales Corporation

Sd/-

Partner.

Despite these facts, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are stated to have disconnected the electricity of the petitioner on 27th August, 1999 on instructions given by the respondent No. 2 for non-payment of the amount which could not have been demanded in view of the orders in CR No. 916/1994.

The petitioner is contended to have made several visits to sort out the issues with the respondent No. 2 whose attitude was found to be arrogant, uncooperative and authoritative. Senior officials of the electricity undertaking were of also no help in the matter. The petitioner contends that Sh. S.D. Kalia, respondent No. 3 herein and Sh. R.K. Dhimal, respondent No. 4 herein are the junior engineers and inspector of the area where the industrial unit of the petitioner is located. It is submitted that none of these officials paid any heed to the matter despite the petitioner meeting them personally on more than five occasions and handing over copies of the orders passed by this Court in CCP No. 11/1996. The petitioner also handed over photocopies of the up to date bills which were duly paid up. In the presence of several persons present, respondent No. 3 is alleged to have shouted at the petitioner and directed him to get orders of the court.

The hapless petitioner thereafter sent a detailed legal notice dated 29th September, 1999 calling upon the respondents to restore the electricity to his premises. Apart from the Delhi Vidyut Board, the petitioner caused services of this legal notice to be effected on seven officers of the electricity company including the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein. The material contents of this notice reads as under:

That the Industrial electricity/power connection of my aforesaid client M/S Gupta Sales Corp. was disconnected on alleged charges of Rs. 61,101/36, which was challenged by my client by filing a civil suit, which was restored on the orders of the Court dated 20.1.89, and thereafter on 30.8.1993 on account of alleged charges of Rs. 26,48,970/33.These charges inter alia were also held to be wholly unjustified by the Ld. EDP vide order Ref. No.: DIR (EDP) VI (003) 655 dated 1.9.1995. That the electricity of my aforesaid client was restored only on 29.1.1996, whereby my client remained out of production for over two years and five months without any fault and therefore suffered losses to the tune of over Rs. 7,42,000/- during the above noted period of about two years and five months. That beside disconnecting the Industrial Power, the Industrial light was also disconnected during the above noticed period, against which there was no demand of any nature.

That after the electricity was restored on 29.1.96, as aforesaid, my client resumed the production but could not compete in the market due to remaining out of the market for over two years and five months as aforesaid. That my client is in the line of manufacturing since 1965. That due to this factor my client suffered losses of Rs. 9,75,000/- on account of the deliberate, unauthorised and illegal actions of the notices 2 to 5.

That even earlier the electricity was restored on 29.1.96, as aforesaid after my client filed a suit being No. 70/89, thereafter an appeal being No. 14/94, before the A.D.J. And a petition for contempt being CCP No. 11/96, in the High Court, besides a Revision was filed by the Noticee No. 1, before the High Court being No. 916/94, which was also required to be defended bu my client.

That the findings of the Ld. EDP communicated vide letter Dt. 1.9.95, and the orders dated 6.4.95, 18.10.95, passed by the High Court in C.R. No. 916/94 and orders dated 2.2.96, 2.7.96 and 3.10.96 passed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 11/96 clearly establishes that the electricity was disconnected by the notices No. 2 to 8, deliberately, unauthorisedly and illegally and also in excess of their powers and for ulterior purposes, considerations and motives to put my client to undue hardship and monitory losses and undue gain for themselves.

Receipt of this legal notice is admitted on behalf of the respondents. Yet, the respondents refused to still act reasonably. They paid no heed to the court proceedings set out therein or the facts narrated by the petitioner. In complete defiance of the rights of the petitioner and the orders dated 18th of October, 1995 directing restoration of the electricity upon payment of the revised bill and completion of the formalities, the respondents issued yet another notice dated 28th October , 1999 which was to the following effect:

No. 85/DO/1805 Date 28/10/99

x10191001675/BS02/1

M/s Gupta SALES CORPN.

A-106, WAZIRPUR IND. AREA

NEW DELHI.

(SUPPLY ADDRESS)

SUB: NOTICE OF DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUES u/s 24(1) OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910. CONNECTION No. x10191001675/8502/1/LR

DEAR SIR,

AS PER THE BILL(S) RENDERED TO YOU AGAINST K-NUMBER X101910001675 FOR THE MONTH OF Oct-99 A SUM OF Rs. 55170.00 EXCLUDING LATE PAYMENTS/CHARGE WAS DUE ON 22/10/99 BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PAID BY YOU SO FAR.

THEREFORE, A NOTICE u/s 24(1) OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 IS HEREBY GIVEN TO YOUREQUIRING YOU TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT AS MENTIONED ABOVE ALONG WITH LATE PAYMENT SURCHARGE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE BY 5th NOV. 1999 (FAILING WHICH THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY OF THE CONNECTION, IN QUESTION, SHALLBE DISCONNECTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER NOTICE.

SUBJUDICE/DISPUTED AMOUNT, IF ANY, SHALLBE DEDUCTED AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE PAYMENT

IT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO UNDERTAKING''S RIGHT TO RECOVER THESE CHRGES OTHERWISE.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,

Sd/-

COMMERCIAL OFFICER(BS)

In response to this communication, the petitioner again met the respondent No. 2 and tried to make him see reason. The petitioner contends that the respondent No. 2 completely refused to see reason and misbehaved with the petitioner in a manner which was most becoming of an officer dealing with the public at large. It is contended that as a result of the disconnection of the electricity, the petitioner has suffered grave financial loss. Being left with no option, the petitioner filed the present petition on 30th November, 1999 seeking initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act and for a direction imposing financial penalty on the contemnors.

Notice was issued in this petition on 2nd December, 1999 when time was sought on behalf of the respondents to file a reply.

I find that only the respondent No. 2 has opted to file an affidavit in response to the notice issued by this Court. The explanation for the aforestated conduct rendered in the affidavit is to the following effect:

That it is submitted that a note was put up before the deponent i.e. the Respondent No. 2, by the junior staff, that the dues of Rs. 26,48,970.33 is outstanding against the petitioner. Consequently, a notice dated 13.8.99 was sent to the petitioner giving an opportunity to explain why the amount has not been paid. The petitioner was further advised to reconcile the dues with the respondents.

That in response to the notice, the petitioner sent a letter dated 18.8.99. However, in the said letter dated 18.8.99 the petitioner did not mention anything regarding the court case or any order passed by this Hon''ble Court or any to her court with regard to any direction or decision on the said pending amount.

xxx The request of Respondents to send a person to reconcile the accounts was also ignored. No representative of the Petitioner came to explain the correct facts.

It is pertinent to mention here that the case/order it was an old case of 1996, when the deponent was not holding this post and consequently he was not aware of any such proceeding with the petitioner in this Hon''ble Court or any other court. The record that was placed before him also did not show that the said demand is in any way connected with an order of this Hon''ble Court.

That since the petitioner in its letter dated 18.8.99 did not mention anything about any such order or direction passed by this Hon''ble Court, the deponent bonafide, directed the respondents No. 3 and 4 to disconnect supply of electricity. Consequently Respondents No. 3-4 disconnected supply of electricity of the petitioner on 27.8.99.

That the deponent learnt about his mistake on or around 29.12.1999 when the deponent was served a copy of the notice of Contempt of this Hon''ble Court. At that time the deponent directed the staff to place the full record before him. On carefully going through the records he learnt about the orders passed by this Hon''ble Court on 6.4.95 and 18.10.95. Immediately thereafter, seeking legal advise, the deponent directed restoration of electricity of supply. The supply hence, was restored at the premises of the petitioner on 29.12.99.

That it is the respectful submission of the deponent that disconnection was effected on account of bonafide mistake. The mistake took place on account of fact that full records, including the Order of this Hon''ble Court was not shown to the deponent by the staff concerned. The records as mentioned in the office of deponent continued to show large outstanding of Rs. 26,48,970.33 against the petitioner. Even in response to show cause notice, the petitioner did not give the full facts. It was in these circumstances that the deponent directed disconnection of the supply. The deponent acted bonafide in the interest of DVB. The deponent apologizes for this bonafide mistake before this Hon''ble Court.

It is the further respectfully submitted that otherwise, the order of the Hon''ble Court dated 18.10.95 were duly implemented by revising the bill as the speaking order of Director, EDP. On receipt of Rs. 1,73,462.33, the supply of petitioner was restored on 29.1.96. Hence, the orders of this Hon''ble Court dated 6.4.95 and 18.10.95 were duly complied with. It cannot be said that there was any willful disobedience of the order of this Hon''ble Court. The disconnection of electricity supply of the premises of petitioner took place on 27.8.99 on account of erroneous records maintained. The same cannot be said any willful disobedience of the order of this Hon''ble Court dated 6.4.95 and 18.10.95.

That the deponent would like to submit that the deponent acted bonafide. The deponent has already issued memo to Sh. S.N. Gupta, A.E., for his negligence.

The petitioner has disputed the averments made by the respondent No. 2 in its rejoinder. Perusal of the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 shows the utter callousness with which he has conducted himself. The letter of the petitioner dated 18th August, 1999 clearly referred to a meeting which was held by the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly indicated that he has paid the revised bill for the sum of Rs. 1,75,743.74 and the periods for which the bill had been raised. This order adverts to the speaking orders passed by the Director EDP pursuant to the orders passed in Civil Revision 916/1994 and stated that nothing further remained to be paid. The petitioner had enclosed the revised bill with this letter alongwith the receipt of the payment.

None of these statements made in the letter dated 18th August, 1999 are disputed by the respondents.

Receipt of this letter is clearly admitted by the respondent No. 2 in his affidavit.

I also find that the supplementary bill issued by the respondents enclosed with this letter contains the following noting:

Supp. Bill for the period Nov. 86 to Aug. 87 on Lip H Tariff as per and pending order passed by DIR(EDP) and May, 88 to Sept. 93 on LIP tariff duly confirmed by Hon''ble High Court of Delhi.

The respondent No. 2 therefore had full knowledge and was put to notice about the orders passed by this Court. The supplementary bill of 1995 referred to both the orders of the Director (EDP) as well as the orders of this Court.

The respondent No. 2 was acting in discharge of the powers conferred on him under the provisions of the electricity enactments. It cannot be disputed that electricity is an essential amenity and more so to an industrial establishment which would be unable to carry on its activity without electricity. The justification rendered in the affidavit filed before this Court is to the effect that the respondent No. 2 was not holding the post of commercial officer(bulk supply) in 1996 and consequently was not aware of the court proceedings of such year.

Even assuming that the respondent No. 2 was prevented by any just or sufficient cause from getting further details from the records of DESU/DVB, I find that the petitioner had addressed a detailed legal notice on the 24th September, 1999 which set out the court orders and proceedings in detail and notified the respondents about the action taken and the orders passed by the Director EDP as well as the revision of the bill and the payment thereof by the petitioner pursuant to the court orders. Such notice was admittedly served upon respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who are employees of the erstwhile Delhi Electricity Undertaking and the Delhi Vidyut Board. If the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were nursing doubts or did not have knowledge of the court orders, they would have immediately verified the facts stated in this notice and taken immediate remedial measures.

The respondent No. 2 in his letter dated 13th August, 1999 has stated that the demand is based on the bulk supply records. Such records would contain the supplementary revised bill and its payment.

Yet no action at all was taken by the respondents even on receipt of this legal notice.

Despite the orders passed against the officials of the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (taken over by the Delhi Vidyut Board), the respondents have shown their utter defiance of the orders passed by this Court apart from the callous disregard of their statutory duties and public law obligations to ensure that the rights of the consumers are not prejudiced or hindered in any manner. They have not failed to pay heed to the specific orders by this Court directing restoration of electricity upon revision of the same demand which was the basis of the earlier disconnection. Every tactic available in the book has been adopted first to avoid restoration and then to repeat the disconnection. In the past, after the petitioner fulfilled every reasonable and unreasonable formality imposed upon him, the bogey of incorrect test reports was raised.

The officials were not satisfied with the harassment caused to the petitioner from August, 1993 till 1996 and did not even let a couple of years pass before his electricity was again disconnected on 22nd August, 1999. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to accept the submissions that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had overlooked or were not aware of the court orders when the demand dated 13th August, 1999 was raised. I find no reason as to why no steps were taken to examine the matter closely even upon receipt of the reply dated 18th August, 1999 from the petitioner before effecting the disconnection on 27th August, 1999.

The letter dated 13th August, 1999 does not disclose any basis for raising the demand of Rs. 26,48,917.33. According to the respondent No. 2 the demand was allegedly raised by him "as per bulk supply records". The demand raised in this letter was of a huge amount and the respondent No. 2 was required to be satisfied that such an amount was actually due and payable by a consumer. The respondent No. 2 had before him the monthly consumption of the petitioner and was required to verify the basis on which he was raising such demand. He was also required to disclose every details of this amount. In case there was any allegation of misuse or load violation, the respondent No. 2 was mandated by statute to issue an appropriate notice and to give an opportunity to the consumer to satisfy it that the allegations were not correct before taking the extreme measure of disconnection. Repeated pronouncements of the Apex Court and by this Court to this effect bind the respondents officials. Apart from the duty imposed by statute, there is an obligation imposed in public law upon officials discharging public duties.

I find that this Court had considered the matter in Civil Revision 916/1994 and CCP No. 11/1996. The electricity was restored by order dated 18th October, 1995 pursuant to payment of such revised demands. It was therefore not open to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to impose a demand which stood revised and disconnect the electricity for non-payment thereof.

I find that on 3rd October, 1996, in CCP 11/1996 as the guilty officers had been proceeded against and punishment imposed in disciplinary action, for this reason further orders were not passed despite the contumacious conduct of the officers of the erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking.

I find that there is also no denial to the fact that the petitioner was made to run from piller to post and that he was treated with utmost disrespect by the respondents. The petitioner in his affidavit has contended that the respondents 2 to 4 misbehaved with him and despite his handing over court orders and details of payment of bill, refused to correct their action.

In these circumstances, the petitioner was without electricity from August, 1993 till the electricity was restored on December, 1995. Despite the petitioner''s compliance with the demand which was raised pursuant to the order dated 18th October, 1995, the electricity to the premises was thereafter again disconnected on 27th August, 1999 .

On 2nd February, 1996, this Court had noticed the manipulations on the part of electricity authorities in the contempt proceedings earlier necessitated for the failure of the respondents to abide by the court orders and the court had not imposed punishment even though it was called for, only in view of the contemnors then having purged themselves of the contempt.

It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents so acted to wreak a vengeance against the petitioner in view of the earlier proceedings. Despite being repeatedly informed that electricity stood restored pursuant to the court orders, that the demand was revised and paid by the petitioner pursuant to the court order, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 showed no intention to correct their actions. The demand which stood revised in proceedings before this Court was being enforced by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The court had directed restoration of the electricity connection upon payment of such amount. The stance taken before this Court itself shows their belligerence which clearly indicates the arrogant belief of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that they are a law unto themselves and are not required to abide by the proceedings and orders of the court. Admittedly the orders of the court were available in the same records of the respondents, where from they have been confirmed by respondent No. 2. I therefore find force in the submission of the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 so acted to wreak vengeance against it.

The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage Re: Offutt v. U.S. 1954 (348) US 11.

The respondent No. 2 in his counter affidavit has contended that he had committed a bona fide mistake. However, I am unable to agree. The arrogance of the respondents is writ large on the face of the record as is manifest from the averments made by him. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have considered it wholly unnecessary to even file a reply in answer to the notice to show cause in the present proceedings.

The action of the respondents in raising the demand dated 13th August, 1999 and disconnection of the electricity on 27th August, 1999 was wilful and contumacious. The respondents deliberately did not even react, let alone correct, their conduct, despite receipt of the legal notice dated 24th September, 1999 which set out in detail the various orders of the court and the compliance of the demand revised in the earlier proceedings by the petitioners. Even the filing of the present contempt petition and receipt of the notice in court on 2nd December, 1999 did not persuade the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to correct themselves. Electricity was restored only on 29th December, 1999.

I am unable to hold that the disconnection of electricity in the aforestated facts and circumstances was on account of a bona fide mistake of respondent No. 2. The present case exemplifies the apathy of the respondents to the plight of a consumer and the vengeance to which he is subjected in case he takes recourse to seeking redressal in legal remedies. Such spirit stares in the face from the manner in which they have acted in respect of the petitioner.

In AIR 1993 SC 1633 entitled B.M. Bhattacharjee (Manager General) v. Russel State Corporation, it was held by the Apex Court that all officers of the Government must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme obtaining in this country, that orders of the court have to be obeyed implicitly and that the orders of the Apex Court cannot, for that matter can - should not be trifled with.

The respondent No. 2 has abjured knowledge of the orders and denied malice and pleaded good faith. He has set up a plea of justification for his conduct which I have disbelieved. Contempt of Court is not confined to pending cases. Administration of justice is a continuing process. An act which would have effect of punishing a person for having taken recourse to litigation would be punishable as Contempt of Court. Actions which show lack of respect for proceedings in court which may have culminated would also be contumacious in this behalf. In this behalf reference may be appropriately made to the law laid down in 1963 1 QB 696 entitled Attorney General v. Butternorth and Ors.

In Advocate-general, State of Bihar Vs. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another, the court held that it may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and effects the interests of public in the administration of justice. It was held that the court has the power to commit for contempt of court in order to break and to vindicate the confidence of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with any default.

The respondent No. 2 has rendered a perfunctory and insincere apology in the reply filed by him. The same is not an act of compunction or contrition on the part of the maker. The apology has not been made in a good faith and is shorn of penitence. I have no hesitation in rejecting such apology contained in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not rendered any such apology on record. In impertinent defiance of the directions, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 effected disconnection of the electricity connection of the petitioner for non-payment of the earlier demand. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea. It can only be accepted if it evidences real contriteness. It is self evidence that there cannot be both justification and an apology at the same time. The two are mutually incompatible. In this behalf I draw strength from the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in M.Y. Shareef and Another Vs. The Hon''ble Judges of The High Court of Nagpur and Others,

At the same time, I have found that the justification for the conduct rendered by respondent No. 2 is not acceptable.

Punishment is awarded on a contemnor to uphold the majesty of law. The jurisdiction is exercised not because the court is not protecting the dignity of an individual judge but to protest the administration of justice from being maligned. In AIR 1968 SC 1895 entitled Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, the Apex Court noticed that in contempt jurisdiction, the court is not adjudicating upon any claim between litigating parties and that this jurisdiction is exercised to uphold the dignity of courts. It was observed that in the general interest of the community, it is imperative that the authority of courts should not be imperiled and there should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice. It is exercised in a summary manner in aid of the administration of justice the majesty of law and the dignity of the courts. No such act can be permitted which may the tendency to shake the public confidence, the fairness and the impartiality of the administration of justice.

Power to punish for contempt therefore must be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. In the matter of: Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, In AIR 1968 Ker 301 entitled K.P. Noordin Mohammad v. A.K. Gupalan, the court laid down the following principles for consideration for punishment.

From a conspectus of the judicial pronouncements on the subject, the following principles can be called out:

(i) The power to punish for contempt is to be sparingly used.

It is to be used only from a sense of duty under the pressure of public interest, not so much to punish the particular offender as to deter like conduct in the future by possible contemners.

(ii) Courts are generally reluctant to punish unless it be shown that it is probable that the publication or action would substantially interfere with the due administration of justice.

(iii) Whether the contemner had knowledge of the pendency or imminence of the cause might also be a factor which the court has to consider in deciding whether it should exercise its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. But whether such knowledge is really an ingredient of the offence or only a consideration to be taken into account in deciding whether the offender should be punished or not that knowledge is more often than not, a matter for inference. And where the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would infer therefrom that a judicial proceeding must be pending or is imminent such knowledge will be imputed.

(iv) In case of criminal contempts courts which by tyranny always look for mens rea in criminal acts and feel unhappy over absolute liability will naturally be low to punish where there is no means rea ever if it be that strictly speaking, no mens rea is required to constitute the offence.

I have held that the respondent is guilty of contempt and have found myself unable to accept the apology rendered by the respondent No. 2. The actions of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 show apparent disrespect for the orders of the court and were such which would shake public confidence in the judicial process.

However the disconnection was effected in 1999 and much time has passed thereafter while the matter has remained pending in court.

For this reason the extreme punishment is not being granted.

In these circumstances, in order to meet the ends of justice, I hereby impose a fine of only Rs. 1,000/- upon the respondent No. 2 and a fine of Rs. 500/- each on respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Such fine shall be deposited by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 within a period of six weeks in this Court. In the event of default of payment of the fine, the respondents shall undergo simple imprisonment of one week.