TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted time and time again when the Stuart Kings claimed to rule by divine right. We would like to quote and requote those words of Sir Edward Coke even at the threshold. In our democratic polity under the Constitution based on the concept of 'Rule of law' which we have adopted and given to ourselves and which serves as an aorta in the anatomy of our democratic system. THE LAW IS SUPREME. Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever he may be, however high he is, he is under the law. No matter how powerful he is and how rich he may be. 2 . Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very corner stone of our co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....units to operate in the State. Such permissions were granted on the basis of decisions taken by the contemnors 1 and 2 deliberately and consciously though fully aware of the orders of this Court with the sole motive of favouring those units and to evade enforcement of the orders of this Court. It was pointed out that as a result of such orders, the units have been permitted to operate in direct contravention of the orders of this Court. 5. Initially, responses were filed by contemnors 1 and 2 but on consideration thereof this Court was of the view that in fact contempt of this Court's order has been committed and, therefore, by order dated 3.2.2006 charges were framed as follows: Whereas this Court by its order dated 4.3.1997 directed the closure of all unlicensed saws mills, veneer and plywood industries, and further by its order of 30th October, 2002, directed that no State Government would permit the opening of any saw mills, veneer and plywood industries, without the prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee and whereas the State of Maharashtra, through its Interlocutory Application No. 414 sought permission to permit the reopening of the saw mills/ven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted in a manner that attempt to lower the authority of this Court as well as interferes in the administration of justice by preventing enforcement of directions issued by the Court which constitutes a criminal contempt. Affidavits in relation to the charges have been filed by contemnors. Their stand in essence is as follows: CONTEMNOR NO. 1: 6. He has stated that the opinion given by him was based on the decision taken by the High Powered Committee (in short 'H.P.C.') on 28.1.2004. He has further stated that if he has made a mistake in his bona fide interpretation of the orders of this there was no mens rea involved and he tenders his unconditional apology. He has stated that there is no question of any disobedience, much less wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court so as to amount the contempt of this Court's order. It is stated that the State Government was of the opinion that units running exclusively on slicer or peeler machines do not require a licence and, therefore, cannot be termed as un-licensed units even after the order of this Court dated 4.3.1997. The units in question were not closed. Subsequently, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....official file and not on a separate piece of paper. He, therefore, has stated that there was no intention of manipulation or interpolation of the official records. CONTEMNOR NO. 2 7. The stand of contemnor No. 2 is that he has acted bona fide without any mens rea. He has also tendered his unconditional apology. It is pointed out that he is qualified only upto secondary school level and belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and had represented the Nandurbar Lok Sabha Constituency as a Member of Parliament, was a member of the Legislative Council nominated by the Government of Maharashtra as well as a member of the State Assembly from Nawapur Assembly. He is presently one of the senior-most members of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and a member of the Cabinet being Minister of Transport, Ports, etc. He was the Minister of Forest and Environment between 19.10.1999 and 31.10.2004. The expert H.P.C. was constituted. The view expressed by it was at variance with the view of the State Government. Though he was not aware of the details of the orders he was conscious of the fact that giving the growing technicalities of the law involved in the day to day functioning of the Ministr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lls, licences, second which are running exclusive, by using slicer and peeler machines and third which are running along with unlicensed saw mills. b. The issue of veneer and plywood units came first time in the matter of T.N. Godaverman v. Union of India (W.P. No. 171/96, 202/95) before Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to the State Government to file affidavit before the Court, regarding the status of saw mills, veneer & plywood units in the State. The affidavit was filed by State Government before the Supreme Court treating veneer & plywood industries units as composite units along with saw mills. According to the affidavit, which implied, that veneer & plywood industries if running along with license saw mills may be treated as licensed unit and if running, without unlicensed saw mills may be treated as unlicensed. On 4.3.1997 Hon'ble Supreme Court passed order as under: All unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries in the State of Maharashtra and State of U.P. are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission license for the opening of any such saw mills, veneer an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the issue of licensing of veneer and plywood industries the Committee took following decision: The Committee has decided that at this stage it will not be proper to make any licensing policy regarding veneer and plywood industry. However, industry department may be directed not to issue any new licence for establishment of veneer and plywood units. 6 . This decision of the Committee, after getting the approval of State Government submitted in the High Court in W.P. No. 3795/95, 1315/2001, 3731/78. In the hearing of these W.Ps. the Hon'ble Court observed that: It leads nowhere, as to the existing position, whether today a licence is required to the complete veneer unit or whether it is required only where a saw mill unit is in existence? Why the seal should not be open. Why these industries should not be allowed to run. The decision is vague it only says for future that Forest Department is not going to grant any licence and decision would have been taken by industry department. 7. Since the issue to giving the licences to the veneer & plywood industries was not decided then this matter was put up further before High Powered Committee on 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bay High Court and of this Court. The permission shall be at the responsibility of unit holders and the unit holders shall close the units if the decisions of the Bombay High Court and this Court are contrary to the stand put forward by the Maharashtra State. Contemnor No. 1 noted as follows: Thanks. Proposal accepted. Permission be granted to start. 11. With reference to the orders passed by contemnors 1 and 2 several units in other States like U.P. started making demands for similar permissions. When this came to the notice of the CEC and learned Amicus Curiae, they intimated the State Government about the violation of the orders. The view of the CEC was contested by the State of Maharashtra. Here comes into picture the manipulation in the official records. It has been accepted by contemnor No. 1 that on 1.2.2005 he had made a note in Marathi in the official file. Significantly, rest of the note sheets is in English. The stand that he wanted to highlight certain aspects during the hearing is clearly contrary to the materials on record. He claims to have made the entry on 1.2.2005. But materials clearly establish that by that time the file was in the possession of CEC.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on a separate piece of paper he by mistake wrote on the official file. Apart from the frivolity of the plea, it is clearly further falsified by the fact that on 1.2.2005 the file was with the CEC. These leave no manner of doubt that contemnor No. 1 has deliberately and wilfully disregarded the authority of law. 13. In B.M. Bhattacharjee (Major General) and Anr. v. Russel Estate Corporation and Anr. 1993CriL J2251 it was observed by this Court that "all of the officers of the Government must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme obtaining in this country, orders of the courts have to be obeyed implicitly and that orders of the apex court-for that matter any court- should not be trifled with". Any country or society professing rule of law as its basic feature or characteristic does not distinguish between high or low, weak or mighty. Only monarchies and even some democracies have adopted the age old principle that the king cannot be sued in his own courts. 14 . Professor Dicey's words in relation to England are equally applicable to any nation in the world. He said as follows: When we speak of the rule of law as a characteristic of our country....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the correct documents were available with CEC and he would not derive any advantage by taking plea contrary to the documents. The specific case is that the mistake occurred at the stage of filing of the reply. Even if that is so, it is certainly a very careless act and more care and caution was necessary, particularly when the affidavits were being filed before this Court. 16 . The stand of contemnors also is further falsified when one takes note of the order passed by the High Court in Kitply's case on 10.8.1998. It was clarified that for operation of any machinery for cutting, slicing and/or peeling the timber - a license under Rule 23 (1)(ii) of the Bombay Transit of Forest Produce (Vidarbha region Saurashtra and Kutch Area) Rules, 1960 is required. It is not disputed that since 1999 corresponding Rule 88 of Bombay Forest Rules, 1942 (in short 'Forest Rules, 1942) has become applicable for entire Maharashtra. Keeping that in view I.A. No. 414 of 1999 was filed to permit grant of license under Forest Rules, 1942 to unlicensed Plywood/veneer industries, which had NOC, industrial license etc. and to wood based industries which intended to operate only on imported t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion that there was no mens rea involved. The fact situation clearly shows to the contrary. Learned counsel appearing for contemnor No. 1 and 2 stated that they have tendered unconditional apology which should be accepted. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. As was noted in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1984CriL J993 "We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slipper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the....