Contempt: Bombay High Court Sentences 5 State Govt Officers To Month-Long Civil Imprisonment, Questions Their Suitability As Public Officers

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain was dealing with contempt petitions filed by projecte affected farmers regarding non-compliance of court’s order for allotment of land to them.

The court however, stayed the execution of the sentence till September 6, the next date of hearing. The following officers were found guilty of contempt –

• Aseem Gupta - Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department
• Bijaysinh Deshmukh - Additional Collector, Pune
• Uttam Patil - Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation Department
• Sachin Kale - Revenue Officer
• Praveen Salunkhe - Land Acquisition Department.

“We are at a complete loss to digest such approach of any litigant to the orders of the Court much less from a responsible senior officer to the orders of the highest Court in the State. This, in our opinion, can only happen when such officer gathers an impression of being above the law, that there are no Courts whose orders would bind them and/or there is no Rule of law. There cannot be any other reading of the conduct of contemnor no. 5 much less any respectable approach or any apology to the Court, which otherwise is the normal norm”, the court said.

A co-ordinate bench on March 2, 2022, had passed several directions, with the consent of the state government, regarding allotment of land within six months to the petitioners. Every direction had a specific time limit for compliance by the contemnors. The court noted that this order was passed after hearing Gupta, who was then the Secretary of Disaster Management Relief and Rehabilitation. The petitioners filed the present contempt petitions when none of the directions were complied with.

The court issued a series of orders between January and August 2023 to address the officers’ non-compliance with the order of March 2022. On August 23, the court noted that the respondents failed to file affidavits of compliance with the order despite multiple opportunities and directed them appear in court on August 30. However, only one of the officers appeared. The court adjourned the case to August 31 to give one more opportunity to the officers appear, but only four officers showed up.

The court noted that typically in contempt cases, the contemnors have a respectful approach and tender an apology for any inadvertent breach of the court's orders. However, in this case, the officers had a "casual approach and impression" and showed no intention to even acknowledge the court’s orders in contempt proceedings, the court said.

The officers’ conduct not only reflected a lack of respect for the rule of law but also raised questions about their suitability to serve as public officers, the court opined.

“If this is the approach, conduct and attitude of such officers/contemors, we would fail to understand as to how these officers being in Government service can serve the Society and discharge the burden of public duties and confidence as reposed in them, and if this be so, whether they can continue to be in the Government service is a question which would seriously stare at the Government. Also such officers who with impunity disobey the orders whether at all deserve to be tolerated in public service is another question” said the court.

The court also said that the officers have misguided and embarrassed the government lawyers before the court by asking them to make oral statements on compliance of the orders. The court specifically condemned Gupta who, knowing that he was in breach of several court orders, merely tried to file an affidavit, and did not appear before the court despite being in Mumbai.

The court noted that there has been no compliance of the March 2022 order, and found all five officers guilty of wilful disobedience of the order as well as the orders in the contempt plea. They were sentenced to one month of civil imprisonment and directed to surrender themselves.

Senior Advocate Milind Sathe for the contemnors mentioned the case after lunch break and asserted that the contemnors were never aware of the contempt proceedings as they didn’t receive the notices. While the court did not believe this claim as this plea had never been raised by the government pleaders in any previous hearing, it decided to stay the execution of the sentence till the next date.

Case no. – Contempt Petition No. 81 of 2023

Case Title – Ajay Uddhav Narhe & Anr. v. Uttam Patil, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) & Ors.