Vera J. Merwanji and Others vs A.K. Sharma and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.�This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging willful disobedience of order dated 09.07.2010 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6027/2010, whereby, it was, inter alia, directed as under:-

"In the meanwhile and until further orders, the respondents No. 2 and 3 are restrained from giving effect to the amendments pertaining to the Constitution of the managing committee and governing council of NAB-Phiroze & Noshir Mewarnji Rehabilitation Centre for Blind, Mount Abu."

The petitioners had filed the writ petition, inter alia, questioning the validity of amendment of the constitution of NBA-Phiroze & Noshir Merwanji Rehabilitation Centre for the Blind, Mount Abu (''Centre'') and seeking several other reliefs pertaining to the management and control of the Centre, wherein, after hearing the petitioners, the above order dated 09.07.2010 came to be passed by this Court.

In the present contempt petition it has been alleged that in the annual report for the year ending 31.03.2010 there is only a mention of Managing Committee of the Centre and there is no reference of the Governing Council, whereas, in view of the interim order dated 09.07.2010, as the respondents were restrained from giving effect to the amendments pertaining to the constitution of the Managing Committee and Governing Council of the Centre, the respondents could not have omitted the Governing Council in its annual report and the act of the respondents in not following the constitution of the Centre and the Clauses regarding composition of Governing Council and its meetings amounts to circumventing the order passed by this Court; it is also alleged that the stand taken by the respondents in their reply to the writ petition insisting on treating the amendment of constitution having been effected and their acting in terms of the amended constitution, despite interim order dated 09.07.2010, is also in clear defiance of the orders passed by this Court; it is further stated that the interim order dated 09.07.2010, after hearing the parties, stands confirmed by order dated 22.02.2012 passed by this Court and application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India has also been rejected; it is prayed that the respondents be suitably punished.

During pendency of this contempt petition, the following orders came to be passed by this Court:-

"Date of Order : 03/05/2013.

PRESENT

HON''BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr. Laxmi Mal Lodha, for the petitioners.

Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondents.

---

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for a week''s time to purge the contempt by restoring both the petitioners, representative of family, who donated the land and building to the respondent-Institution on the condition that two members of donor family will continue in the Governing Council and the Apex Body of the respondent- Institution administering the Centre at Mount Abu in compliance of the letter and spirit of original gift-deed under which the said property was vested with the respondent, National Association for Blind (India), Mumbai; and produce the said report before this Court restoring the position of the present petitioners (husband and wife) in the Apex/Governing Body of the NAB-Phiroze & Noshir Merwanji Rehabilitation Centre for Blind, Mount Abu in terms of letter and spirit of gift-deed."

"Date of Order : 18.07.2013

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for further one week''s time to produce the report before this Court restoring the position of the petitioners (husband and wife) in the Apex/Governing Body of the NAB-Phiroze & Nosir Merwanji Rehabilitation Centre for Blind, Mount Abu in terms of letter and spirit of gift deed as already directed by this Court on 3.5.2013. Time prayed for is allowed."

Whereafter, the respondents by their resolution dated 18.03.2014 have resolved as under:-

"Resolution-It is resolved that Smt. Veera Merwanji W/o Shri Jehangir P. Merwanji (member, Donor family) is co-opted as member donor family representative in the managing committee of the NAB Phiroze and Noshire Merwanji Rehabilitation Centre for the Blind, Mount Abu."

A reply to the contempt petition has been filed, inter alia, denying the allegations made against the respondents and indicating that vide communication dated 18.02.2010 the Secretary General of National Association of Blind, India (''NAB'') informed the Centre that vide decision dated 19.01.2010 the Executive Council of NAB India has decided to abolish Governing Council at the Centre since a Managing Committee is already managing affairs of the Centre and two committees are not required for managing one Centre; the life members of the Centre at Mount Abu shall be upgraded to become life members of NAB India and the communication be taken up in the meeting of the Governing Council fixed on 28.02.2010 for acceptance of the said resolution and abolition of Governing Council; on 28.02.2010 in two separate meetings, first on 10:00 AM of Managing Committee followed by a meeting of Governing Council, it was resolved in compliance to the directives of NAB India that the Governing Council shall stand dissolved and that there shall be no other separate membership in any Centre at NAB and that all the members of NAB, Mount Abu Centre shall be upgraded to become members of the parent body NAB India; both the petitioners were present in the meeting of the Governing Council dated 28.02.2010 and the petitioner No. 2 was present in the meeting of the Managing Committee dated 28.02.2010 and no protest was raised and, consequently, in absence of any Governing Council, the bypassing of the same was denied and as the said Governing Council stood dissolved before the interim order was passed by this Court, no case of willful disobedience of the interim order can be said to be made out.

Regarding the orders dated 03.05.2013 and 18.07.2013 passed by this Court, it is submitted that there is no Governing Council or any other body functioning parallel to or over and above the Managing committee.

While petitioner No. 2 is already a member of the Managing Committee, the petitioner No. 1 has been co-opted as member of the Managing Committee by resolution dated 18.03.2014 and, as such, all the orders passed by this Court stand complied with.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the respondents are guilty of gross contempt of order dated 09.07.2010 passed by this Court, inasmuch as, despite interim order, whereby, they have been restrained from giving effect to the amendments pertaining to the constitution of the Managing Committee and Governing Council of the Centre, which order came to be confirmed by this Court on 22.03.2012, the Governing Council of the Centre has been rendered a defunct body by the respondents; the existence of Governing Council is not being recognized by the respondents and no meetings as envisaged by the By-laws, Rules and Regulations of the Centre are taking place; even the order passed by this Court on 03.05.2013 has not been complied with in true letter and spirit by the respondents; despite the fact that a stand was taken by the respondents regarding amendment of the constitution before passing of the interim order by this Court, the interim order dated 09.07.2010 has been confirmed and, therefore, the respondents now cannot rely on their stand regarding abolition of the Governing Council; the conduct of the respondents is writ large on the record and, therefore, they be suitably dealt with by this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents, who represent a Charitable Organization like NAB, have no intention to flout any of the orders passed by this court; the entire action of the respondents has been in furtherance of their object to run the Centre at Mount Abu properly, in consonance with the wishes of the original donors and according to the Constitution, By-laws, Rules and Regulations of NAB; it was further submitted that the Governing Council stood abolished under the directions of NAB, after the resolution was passed by the Governing Council and Managing Committee of the Centre; the petitioner despite being aware about the said aspect, the interim order dated 09.07.2002 came to be passed by this Court.

Learned counsel further submitted that under the parent organization NAB India, there are no provisions for two parallel bodies for running and/or managing a Centre and, as such, the Governing Council was abolished; further submissions were made seeking to question the motives of the petitioners in filing the writ petition and the present contempt petition; with regard to the order dated 03.05.2013 passed in the contempt petition, it was submitted that the order has been complied with in letter and spirit; it was prayed that the contempt petition be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The consideration while deciding a contempt petition before the Court is as to whether the respondents have acted in willful disobedience to any order of the Court.

The order dated 09.07.2010 was passed by this Court restraining the respondents from giving effect to the amendments pertaining to the constitution of the Managing Committee and Governing Council of the Centre; it appears that in reply to the writ petition the respondents took the stand that before passing of the order dated 09.07.2010 the effect to the amendments had already been given by the respondents as the resolutions for amendment was passed on 28.02.2010; whereafter the present contempt petition came to be filed by the petitioners alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 09.07.2010, whereby, the Governing Council, which formed part of the unamended constitution was rendered defunct by the respondents and the respondents were not acting in relation to the said Governing Council in terms of the unamended constitution; the respondents again took the same stand in the contempt petition, as was taken in reply to the writ petition regarding the amendments having taken effect before the order dated 09.07.2010 came to be passed by this Court.

Whereafter, this Court in the contempt petition passed order dated 03.05.2013, quoted hereinbefore, whereby, this Court granted time to the respondents ''to purge the contempt'' by restoring both the petitioners in the Apex/Governing body of the Centre in terms of letter and spirit of gift deed; the order dated 03.05.2013 was passed by the Court after hearing both the parties.

A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Charan Singh Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, while explaining the concept of purging the contempt observed as under:-

"14. It is evident that under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the power conferred is to punish. This is essential to uphold the majesty of the Courts. However, there is a higher element which is the majesty and rule of law. An order passed by the Court has to be respected and its violation not only brings about the consequences to be faced under the contempt jurisdiction, but it also obligates the court to put the parties back into the same position that existed on the passing of the order. This is what is known as purging the contempt. Etymologically the word purge is derived from the Latin word ''purus'' which means ''clean'' and ''agree'' which means ''to make''. The word purge therefore means to cleanse, to purify and to atone. It means to distill which process is to be adopted to remove any objectionable elements. This is a process of filtering and is an act to compel repentance. The act of purging is to expiate with the help of an aperient. In sum and substance the removal of the wrong and to restore the pure stream of justice is the figurative meaning of the word purge. This is necessary to ensure the strict administration of justice.

The process therefore apart from punishment in contempt proceedings attracts the inherent powers of the High Court to make amends and reconcile the position that should exist under the orders of the Court. It is a satisfaction which is required to remove any pollution in the stream of justice. It is an act of reparation. Any defilement of the administration of justice has to be followed by correction of any error and remove the same so as to restore the rule of law. It is the duty of the Court therefore also to ensure that the contemnor purges the contempt and does not get away with a apology under the threat of punishment."

It would be seen that this Court merely did not grant opportunity to the respondents to purge the contempt but gave direction as well. The very fact that this Court by its order dated 03.05.2013 while granting opportunity to the respondents to purge the contempt passed a positive direction, obviously to clarify as to what was required to be done by the respondents to purge the contempt, necessarily means that the stand taken by the respondents in their reply regarding giving effect to the amendment to the constitution before passing of the order dated 09.07.2010, had been considered by the Court and, therefore, the order was passed directing it to restore the position of the petitioners in the Apex/Governing Body of the Centre and no further directions were issued by this Court regarding functioning of the Governing Council, regarding which, a specific allegations was made in the petition.

As to which body would constitute Apex/Governing Body of the Centre in terms of the order dated 03.05.2013 is concerned, the very fact that this Court did not direct restoration of the Governing Council and/or restoration of petitioners position in the Governing Council, necessarily means that the aspect of amendment of the constitution had been taken note of and, therefore, the restoration of position of the petitioners was ordered qua the ''Apex/Governing Body'' by this Court.

The order dated 03.05.2013 has been complied with by the respondents by passing the resolution dated 18.03.2014 (supra) by appointing Smt. Veera Mervanji as co-opted member on the Managing Committee of the Centre; the fact that the interim order dated 09.07.2010 came to be confirmed by this Court after filing of the reply by the respondents on 22.03.2012 is also not of much significance as the order dated 03.05.2013 in the contempt petition has been passed by this Court after the confirmation of the stay order.

In view of the fact that specific direction with a view to purge the contempt has been passed by this Court and the respondents having complied with the said direction, belatedly though, for which delay the respondents have tendered unconditional apology, it cannot be said that the respondents are guilty of willful disobedience of the order dated 09.07.2010 passed by this Court.

Consequently, the notices issued are discharged and the contempt petition is dismissed.