K.K Gupta Director Marketing vs Himachal Pradesh Petroleum Dealers ...

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3731 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 22843 OF 2015]

K.K GUPTA & ORS. Appellant (s)

VERSUS

HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS ASSOCIATION & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9310 OF 2016

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3732 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 1865 OF 2016]

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

SLP (C) No. 22843 OF 2015

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved

by the direction dated 28.05.2015 issued by the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Contempt

Petition (COPC) No. 587 of 2014. It was the

allegation of the respondents – writ petitioners that

the policy guidelines dated 17.02.2014 framed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.04.17 pursuant to the directions issued by the court are in 10:23:18 IST Reason:

violation of the spirit of the Judgment dated

17.05.2012. It was also alleged that there is a 2

violation of the interim arrangement made by the

court. In order to appreciate the contention, it is

necessary to extract the operative portion of the

Judgment dated 17.05.2012, which reads as follows :-

“42. Consequently, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to take a decision to notify petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas within a period of twelve weeks from today. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to comply with the action approved in the meeting held on 9.6.2011, as per para 7, within a period of six weeks from today. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 shall take final decision and issue appropriate directions/guidelines/instructions on the opening of new retail outlets. Till then, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as of today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.”

3. We do not think that there is any ambiguity in

the order. The direction was only to frame

guidelines and till the guidelines are framed, there

was a direction to maintain status quo as on the date

of the Judgment.

4. The guidelines were framed on 17.02.2014, as

directed by the High Court and notified on 3

21.05.2014. Paragraph 4D of the guidelines thus

framed, reads as follows :-

“D. Existing Roster of earlier SRMPs and advertisement of Back Log locations :-

The existing Roster of old SRMPs made under the earlier guidelines has been frozen and closed in July 2012. The locations already advertised and which are at various stages of commissioning will be governed as per their advertisement conditions.

Industry will work out the backlog for locations under SC/ST category based on the outlets commissioned/COCO’s divested and LOI’s issued against advertisement released after 01.04.2002, under prevailing Marketing Plans of OMCs and advertise the same.”

5. The High Court, as per the impugned order in the

contempt petition, took the view that the guidelines

framed by the companies are in violation of the

Judgment. The High Court, in exercise of its

contempt jurisdiction, issued further orders as well.

The order to the extent relevant is at Paragraph 12,

which reads as follows :-

“Thus, in furtherance of implementation of Judgment of this Court in CWP No. 3723 of 2010 dated 17.5.2012 in letter and spirit, respondents are directed to consider the 4

old cases, which were pending at the time of filing of the petition also, as per the new guidelines. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of and the notice is discharged. No costs.”

6. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.

7. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned

Additional Solicitor General appearing for the

appellants, and Ms. Vernika Tomar, learned counsel

appearing for the respective respondent(s). As we

have already indicated above, it is very difficult to

appreciate the stand of the High Court that there is

violation of the status quo order granted on

17.05.2012. The direction to maintain status quo was

only till framing of guidelines. Once the guidelines

are framed, the life of the interim order to maintain

status quo also expires and thereafter, the field is

to be governed by the new guidelines framed and

notified on 21.05.2014. If the respondents are, in

any way, aggrieved by the guidelines, it is for them

to pursue appropriate remedy but not proceedings for

contempt. In contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot

expand the scope of the Judgment which is alleged to

have been violated. The Court's jurisdiction in

contempt proceedings is to see whether there is

willful disobedience of any direction or a 5

contumacious attempt otherwise to circumvent the

Judgment. Sans that the rest should be left to the

aggrieved party to pursue the matters in other

appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned

order dated 28.05.2015 is set aside and the appeal is

allowed as above.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9310 OF 2016 and SLP (C) No. 1865

OF 2016

1. Leave is granted in SLP (C) No. 1865 of 2016.

2. In view of the Judgment passed above, these

appeals are disposed of.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]

.......................J. [ NAVIN SINHA ]

New Delhi;

April 11, 2018.

6

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22843/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-05-2015 in COPC No. 587/2014 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla)

K.K GUPTA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

HIMACHAL PRADESH PETROLEUM DEALERS ASSOCIATION & ANR. Respondent(s)

(IA No.134256/2017-EARLY HEARING APPLICATION)

WITH C.A. No. 9310/2016 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 1865/2016 (XIV)

Date : 11-04-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

Counsel for the parties Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.

Ms. Iti Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Darar, Adv.

Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR

Ms. Vernika Tomar, AOR

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, ASG Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv.

Mr. S. A. Haseeb, Adv.

Mr. Raj Bhahadur Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR 7

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

SLP (C) No. 22843 OF 2015

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable

Judgment.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9310 OF 2016 and SLP (C) No. 1865 OF 2016

Leave is granted in SLP (C) No. 1865 of 2016.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable

Judgment.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)