Dua, J. - (1.) In this appeal by special leave (1) the Aligarh Municipal Board, (2) the Executive Officer of the Board, (3) Shri Kanhaiyalal, Demand Inspector of the Board, (4) Ahmad Khan, peon and (5) Hoti Lal, Munshi of the Board, challenge the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 7th December, 1965 holding them guilty of contempt of that court for having disobeyed the stay order passed by it on the 29th of March, 1965.
(2.) It appears that there was some dispute in regard to the realisation of fees claimed by the Municipal Board of Aligarh from Ekkawalas and Tongawalas for the use of the Municipal stands at various places in Aligarh city. The two suits filed by the Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union in this connection had been decided in its favour. As the board still persisted in realising the fees the said Union along with six of its members filed a writ petition against the Board in the Allahabad High Court . This petition was admitted on the 29th January, 1965. The Court also made an interim order of stay on that date. That order reads: "During the pendency of the application the respondent shall not realise any fees for the use of stands on Rathras Road, Bannadevi Road, Shri Sikandra Rao Road and Chatari Road from petitioners Nos. 2 to 7". According to the version given by Bhagwan Das, Secretary of the Union which has been accepted by the High Court, and in our opinion rightly, a certified copy of the said order was obtained by him from the High Court on the same day, i.e., 29th March, 1965. Bhagwan Das reached Aligarh on the 30th March with that copy. On 31st March, 1965 he went to the office of the Board and handed over to the office a letter addressed to the Officer-in-charge stating that the High Court had stayed the realisation of stand fees in W. P. No. 621' of 1964 but that order was not being obeyed. With that letter he annexed an uncertified copy of the stay order. Bhagwan Das secured from the office of the Board a memorandum acknowledging receipt of his letter. He also showed the certified copy of the stay order to Executive Officer, the Demand Inspector, and the Receiving Clerk, before filing with the office of the Municipal Board his letter and the uncertified copy of the order. These papers reached the Executive Officer the same day, that is, 31st March, 1965 at about 4 p.m. The Executive Officer directed the Demand Inspector as follows: "D. I. Please to report in the matter (O.C.) may also kindly see." The Officer-in-charge passed the following order on 1st April, 1965: "Seen. Orders of the High Court should be obeyed". When this order went back to the Executive Officer with Bhagwan Das's letter and a copy of the stay order annexed therewith, he directed: "D. I. to note and comply" and sent the papers to be placed forthwith before the Demand Inspector Kanhaiyalal Sharma. Those papers reached the Demand Inspector on the 2nd April, 1965 at 4 p.m. On the night of 1st April the Executive Officer went away to Lucknow on official work and returned to Aligarh on 5th April. In his absence the Medical Officer of Health acted as Executive Officer. The Demand Inspector, instead of complying with the directions of the Executive Officer and the Officer-in-charge, recorded a note on 3rd April addressed to the Executive Officer, pointing out that the copy of the order of the High Court was not a certified copy and suggesting that if considered proper the opinion of the Municipal counsel on the point be obtained. These papers were placed before the executive Officer on 5th April and not before the Health Officer acting as executive Officer during his absence. On the morning of 5th April the Executive Officer recorded the following order: "Today D. I. The orders of O. C. and the High Court are clear and need compliance at once. Municipal counsel be also please apprised and his report and advice taken." In spite of these clear directions, the Demand Inspector again, instead of immediately complying with them, passed on the papers to the Municipal Counsel who also expressed his opinion that the order of the High Court had to be obeyed. The Counsel further advised that the Board's lawyer at Allahabad should be asked to move the High Court for getting the stay order vacated. This opinion was given on that very day. Curiously the Demand Inspector even then did not feel satisfied. He again sought the directions of the Executive Officer whether on persual of the opinion of the Municipal Counsel the realisation of the stand fee had to be stopped. The Executive Officer reminded the Demand Inspector of his earlier directions by recording on 5th April, 1965: "There are orders already on page overleaf, that the orders of the High Court be obeyed. That be done forthwith." Even after this note the Demand Inspector did not realise the urgency of the matter and did not consider it proper to send forthwith and without avoidable delay directions to the relevant octroi posts to stop realisation of stand fees. Such directions were only sent in the afternoon of 6th April, with the result that the stay order made by the High Court on 29th March, 1965 was acted upon only with effect from 7th April, 1965. The stand fee thus continued to be realised as usual till 7th April, 1965 though the Municipal Board and the concerned officers of the board had been apprised of the orders as early as 31st March, 1965 and the Officer-in-charge as also the Executive Officer had expressly directed that the orders of the High Court be obeyed.
(3.) On behalf of the appellants it was contended that Bhagwan Das had not annexed with his letter the certified copy of the stay order and the appellants were therefore fully justified in verifying and assuring themselves of the authenticity of the stay order before issuing directions stopping realisation of stand-fees from the six respondents (nos. 2 to 7). It was further contended that there is no evidence of stand fees having actually been collected from them. This was in substance the main submission raised by Mr. Rana on behalf of the appellants. It was added that Bhagwan Das had without any material made an allegation on 31st March, 1965 that the stay order was not being obeyed. The conduct of the appellants in not taking on their face value the averment contained in Bhagwan Das's letter, was bona fide and reasonable said the counsel. It was strongly argued that the appellants were not guilty of contempt of court because they had not been officially served with the order and they were not sure if any stay order had in fact been made,; and also about its exact terms; in any event they had offered an unqualified apology which should have been accepted.;