ALIGARH MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. EKKA TONGA MAZDOOR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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.