6 years on, High Court accepts unconditional apology of IAS officer, another
More than six years after IAS officer Shivdular Singh Dhillon and Bathinda Food Controller Jaspreet Singh Kahlon were sentenced “till the rising of the court” following conviction in a contempt case involving the much-hyped Atta-Dal scheme, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has accepted unconditional apology before setting aside the orders.
The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma at the same time asserted the delay in executing the court’s directives explained in an earlier affidavit was characteristic of the state government’s usual trend of shifting files between the departments, compelling litigants to file contempt petitions.
The Bench asserted the state unnecessarily sought legal opinions causing further delays, despite clear and unambiguous court orders not requiring review or appeal.
“In the present case also the affidavit explaining delay shows the movement of file from one person to the other, which further shows that the file is unnecessarily moved for legal opinion of the compliance. This action amounts to contempt in the present case,” the court observed.
The Bench added an unconditional apology was tendered by the appellants on February 9, 2017 and again vide affidavit dated April 20, 2017. “Therefore, we find merit in the present appeal and set aside the orders dated February 1, 2017, and February 12, 2018, passed by the Single Judge while accepting the apology tendered by the appellants,” the court added.
The Single Bench had earlier asserted that the court was inclined to impose “harsh fine” due to their “grave willful disobedience”. But it was constrained from doing so due to the limitations imposed by the Contempt of Courts Act.
Imposing Rs 2,000 each fine, the Judge had asserted: “On one hand the courts are being accused of using their powers excessively. On the other, officials like the respondents leave no stone unturned for provoking the Court from using its powers granted by the Constitution of India/legislature in order to meet the ends of justice”.
The directions came on a petition by depot holder Roshan Lal Prem Chand counsel Vijay K. Jindal. The case has its genesis in an order passed in October, 2015, directing the state to pay transportation charges and “margin money” on wheat procured and distributed under the scheme.
For the purpose, the Bench had set three months deadline. At that time, the deport holders were provided transportation charges and margin money on pulses, but not wheat. Jindal had contended that necessary payments had not been released within required three months; and “no plausible justification whatsoever has been forthcoming”.
'Benefit was not extended on wheat'
A depot holder, under the scheme, was required to deposit the entire amount for wheat and dal stocks required for distribution. He was required to distribute 7 kg wheat against 1 kg pulses. Since wheat procurement was more than pulses, the respondents were denying margin money and transportation charges on it, as the process would incur heavy expenses. The stand, counsel Vijay K Jindal argued, was totally unreasonable and unwarranted.
The respondents did not deny that the petitioner was being paid the charges and money on pulses. But “strangely enough” the benefit was not extended on wheat “on the ground that it would also be covered in the payment of transportation charges and margin money on pulses because it is a part of the Atta Dal scheme”.
