Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court was seized with contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of interim orders passed in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 14760-62/1992. The petitioner had filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging illegal construction and proposed commercial use of House No. 47, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi by the first respondent. The High Court recorded the statement of the respondent's counsel that the premises would be used only for residential purposes and that any change of user would occur only after obtaining permission from appropriate authorities. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which by order dated 13.11.1992 granted an ad interim injunction restraining commercial use. On 1.3.1993, the Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petitions with directions that any application for running a guest house or change of user pending before the Police Commissioner, MCD, or Land and Development Officer would be decided only after hearing the petitioner and subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. A clarification on 5.3.1993 extended this direction to the Land and Development Officer. Subsequently, the petitioner filed contempt petitions alleging that the respondent opened a 40-room guest house named 'The Renaissance' without obtaining requisite permission from MCD, in violation of the court's orders. Notices were issued, and affidavits were exchanged. The respondent contended that he had obtained a temporary licence from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) under the Delhi Police Act and that he believed the court's orders did not restrain him from using the premises once a licence was obtained. The MCD, in its affidavit, stated that the respondent had not conveyed commercial use in the building plans and that he had started using the premises for commercial purposes without any valid MCD licence, leading to initiation of criminal proceedings. Conditions 22 and 24 of the temporary licence explicitly required compliance with other laws and a valid MCD licence. The Court noted that the guest house was closed from 21.7.1994. The respondent tendered unconditionally apology, admitting misinterpretation of the orders and agreeing not to use the premises until MCD licence was obtained. The Court also examined the role of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), who had granted the temporary licence after hearing the petitioner but without MCD clearance, relying on Regulations 19 and 40(A). Finding the DCP's explanation unsatisfactory, the Court issued a show cause notice for contempt against the DCP. The provided judgment text is truncated before the final operative order, so the ultimate decision on contempt and punishment is not ascertainable from the available excerpt.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience of Interim Orders - Undertaking before Court - Supreme Court orders dated 1.3.1993 and 5.3.1993 required that any application for running guest house/change of user be disposed of after hearing petitioner and subject to final decision of writ petition; contemnor started guest house after obtaining only temporary DCP licence without MCD licence, violating the order - Held, prima facie, contemnor's interpretation was wrong and he tendered unconditional apology, but court issued show cause notice for contempt (Paras 5-13, 17-18). B) Municipal Law - Guest House Licensing - Requirement of MCD Licence - Delhi Police Act Regulations and MCD bye-laws - DCP temporary licence did not absolve licensee from obtaining MCD licence; conditions 22 and 24 explicitly required compliance with other laws and valid MCD licence - Held, MCD stated that contemnor could not carry on business of guest house without proper MCD licence, and criminal proceedings initiated (Paras 13-14). C) Contempt of Court - Liability of Public Official - DCP (Licensing) - Supreme Court order dated 1.3.1993 required hearing petitioner before disposal of application for guest house; DCP granted temporary licence after hearing petitioner but without MCD NOC, based on Regulations 19 and 40(A) practice - Court found affidavit far from satisfactory and issued show cause notice to DCP for contempt (Paras 16-19). D) Contempt of Court - Unconditional Apology - Mitigation - Contemnor tendered sincerest and unconditional apology, closed guest house, and agreed not to use premises till MCD licence obtained - Court considered but not final due to incomplete text (Paras 11, 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent-contemnor wilfully disobeyed the Supreme Court's orders dated 1.3.1993 and 5.3.1993 by using premises No. 47, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi as a guest house without obtaining permission/licence from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other appropriate authorities, and whether such disobedience amounted to contempt of court; also whether the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) was liable for contempt by granting temporary licence in violation of the orders.
Law Points
- Undertaking before court binds party
- Orders of court must be obeyed
- Permission from one authority does not exempt from other statutory licences
- Misinterpretation of order not a defence to contempt
- DCP temporary licence subject to compliance with other laws
- Unconditional apology may not absolve wilful disobedience
