Supreme Court upholds contempt finding against Aligarh Municipal Board for disobeying stay order

The Supreme Court upheld the finding of contempt against the Aligarh Municipal Board and its officers for disobeying a stay order. The Board continued to collect fees despite being aware of the order, leading to their guilt of contempt. The Executive Officer's clear directions distinguished his liability from the Demand Inspector, resulting in the setting aside of his conviction. The Court allowed the appeals of the peon and Munshi due to lack of evidence of their knowledge and issued refunds of fines if paid. The Municipal Board and Demand Inspector's appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Contempt of court for disobeying a stay order.
2. Justification for non-compliance due to uncertified copy of the stay order.
3. Liability of the Municipal Board as a corporate entity.
4. Individual liability of the Executive Officer.
5. Individual liability of the peon and Munshi of the Board.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt of Court for Disobeying a Stay Order:
The appellants, including the Aligarh Municipal Board and its officers, were held guilty of contempt by the Allahabad High Court for disobeying a stay order dated 29th March 1965. The stay order restrained the Board from realizing fees from certain petitioners for using municipal stands. Despite being informed of the stay order on 31st March 1965, the Board continued to collect fees until 7th April 1965. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the appellants were guilty of contempt, emphasizing that the Demand Inspector, Kanhaiyalal Sharma, knowingly and deliberately disobeyed the order.

2. Justification for Non-Compliance Due to Uncertified Copy of the Stay Order:
The appellants argued that they were justified in verifying the authenticity of the stay order since Bhagwan Das, the Secretary of the Union, had not annexed a certified copy with his letter. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the certified copy was shown to the officers concerned, and the Executive Officer had directed compliance. The Court found no bona fide or reasonable basis for the Demand Inspector's persistent non-compliance and held that the realisation of fees continued despite clear directions to stop.

3. Liability of the Municipal Board as a Corporate Entity:
The appellants contended that the Municipal Board, being a corporation, could not be convicted of contempt. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that a corporation is liable to be punished for contempt through fines and sequestration. The Court clarified that a command to a corporation is a command to those responsible for its affairs. If they fail to comply, both the individuals and the corporate body are guilty. Therefore, the appeal on behalf of the Municipal Board was dismissed.

4. Individual Liability of the Executive Officer:
The Executive Officer had directed the Demand Inspector to comply with the stay order and reiterated this upon his return from official duty. The Supreme Court found his directions clear and unambiguous. Given his absence due to official duty and his subsequent clear instructions, the Court distinguished his case from that of the Demand Inspector. The Executive Officer's appeal was allowed, and his conviction and sentence were set aside.

5. Individual Liability of the Peon and Munshi of the Board:
Ahmad Khan, the peon, and Hoti Lal, the Munshi, were added as contemners later. The Supreme Court found that they were duty-bound to obey their superior officers and had no direct orders to stop fee collection. The Court was not convinced that they were aware of the exact terms of the stay order. Given the lack of clear evidence of their knowledge and their unqualified apology, the Court allowed their appeals and set aside their convictions and sentences.

Final Result:
The appeals of the Executive Officer, Ahmad Khan, and Hoti Lal were allowed, and their convictions and sentences were set aside, with refunds of fines if paid. The appeals of the Municipal Board and the Demand Inspector, Kanhaiyalal Sharma, were dismissed.

---