S.K. DASGUPTA & ORS.versusVIJAY SINGH SENGAR & ORS.

                      [2010] 7 S.C.R. 881


                   S.K. DASGUPTA & ORS.                          A
                               V.
               VIJAY SINGH SENGAR & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal of 6794 of 2003)

                          MAY 5, 2010*
                                                                  B
  [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,
                      JJ.]

     Conte mp~ of Court
     Contempt petition before High Court - · Arising out of
                                                                  c
directions by High Court in a writ petition filed in public interest
to officials of State Electricity Board to provide uninterrupted
supply of electricity to government Hospitals and street lights
to be on during nights, throughout the State - High Court
directing impleadment of senior Members of the Board and D
others as contemnors and ordering inquiry to be held by CBI
          1

- HELD: The directions made by High Court are clearly
beyond courts' jurisdiction in a public interest litigation as
they interfere with the functioning of independent State
agencies in matters which are beyond their control insofar as E
uninterrupted supply of electricity is concerned - It cannot be
ignored that shortage of power is a phenomenon common
to the entire country and to single out Members of the Board
or the Regulatory Commission for failure to comply with the
directions of the High Court which are incapable of F
compliance, is not called for - Officers of the Board have
repeatedly come to Court to explain that the situation was
beyond their control and that the shortfall in the supply of
electric power was not of their making nor in their control -
High Court ignored this basic fact and passed orders which G
were incapable of compliance - Order of the High Court set
aside and contempt proceeding discharged - Public Interest
Litigation.
•Judgment Recd. on 26.7.2010
                               881                                H
    882      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A         PUBLIC INTEREST LIT/GA TION:

         Jurisdiction in public interest litigation- Held: Is to be
    invoked sparingly and with rectitude and any order made
    therein must be reasonable and must not reflect the pique of
B   the court, more particularly, as it is not court's business to
    attempt to run the government in a manner which the court
    thinks is the proper way - Judicial restraint.
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    6794 of 2003.
c       From the Judgment & Order dated 1.4.2003 of the High
    Court of Judicature of M.P. Bench at Gwalior (M.P.) in CP (C)
    No. 37 of 2003 in W.P. No. 677 of 2003.

                                    WITH
D   C.A. Nos. 6795 & 6796 of 2003.

          Ashiesh Kumar, B.S. Banthia for the appearing parties.
          The following Order of the Court was delivered

E                               ORDER
         These appeals arise out of a contempt petition wherein a
    Sin~ile Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior
    Bench, in his order dated 1st April, 2003 has ordered an
    enquiry against some officials and members of the M.P. State
F   Electricity Board by the Central Bureau of Investigation and
    arrayed some senior Members of the Board and others as
    contemnors as well.
          The facts are as under:
G        The respondent, Vijay Singh Sengar, a practising
    Advocate at Jabalpur, filed a writ petition in public interest
    pointing out that patients in Government hospitals were
    suffering great agony on account of un-scheduled load-
    shedding from 6.30 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. to 8.00
H   p.m. and that the entire State was plunged into darkness taking
S.K. DASGUPTA & ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH SENGAR & 883
                    ORS.

the State back to the 'Stone Age Days'. Alongwith the writ A
petition a large number of newspaper cuttings were also
appended, to substantiate the pleas that had been raised.
During the hearing of the petition several senior officers of the
Board were summoned to Court including Mr. R.N. Mishra, the
Chief Engineer (0 & M). It was also observed in an interim B
order made by the Court that the Board had undertaken to take
all measures to supply electricity for street lights and that in a
democratic set up it was the responsibility of the State to
ma1ntain all essential services and the basic amenities of life.
It was also observed that it was a matter of common c
knowledge that the absence of the power supply to Government
hospitals caused great discomfort, pain and constituted a
danger to the patients who were admitted therein. By an order
dated 13th September, 2001, a direction was accordingly given
in the following terms:
                                                                      D
          "We, therefore, as an interim measure, direct
    respondents 1 and 2 to maintain round the clock electricity
    supply in the Government Hospitals throughout the State.
    We further direct that the street lights shall be kept on
    throughout the State between sunset and sunrise.                  E

           The above directions be carried out in letter and spirit
    forthwith, even at the cost of discontinuing with the
    scheduled load shedding as a whole with the only exception
    in the event of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board itself       F
    not getting the power supply, or a 'Grid Failure' beyond
    their control It is further being made clear that any breach
    of the above directions would be viewed seriously.

     List for further orders on 27/9/2001.
     Let a copy of this orper be suppliP.d to Shri Sanjay Seth,       G
Additional Advocate General, today for necessary compliance."
     It appears that a special leave petition was filed against
the aforesaid order but the same was dismissed in view of the
fact that the M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission had              H
    884      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A   passed certain effective orders and no orders were thus thought
    to be called from the Court. It appears that another public
    interest litigation was subsequently filed and an order was made
    on 17th March, 2003 while issuing notice that "there shall be
    no power cut during night time until further orders."
B        Another petition was filed before the Indore Bench,
    highlighting the difficulties being faced in the State due to
    interrupted supply of electricity by the Board and by an interim
    order o1ficers of the M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission
    were also directed to be present so that some method could
C   be devised to reduce the rigour of the power cuts in force.

          ThE~ matter was thereafter adjourned time and again to see
  if the directions given by the Court from time to time were
  effectively complied with. It was also observed during the
0 course of the proceedings before the Indore Bench that the
  Court could not be a mere spectator to the miseries being felt
  by the public and that the arguments made on behalf of the staff,
  Board and State agencies that the Court could not interfere in
  policy matters, could be ignored as it was the bounden duty of
E the Court to ensure the welfare of the State citizens. The Court
  accordingly observed that it appeared that the officials of the
  Electricity Board and the Regulatory Commission were not
  serious in implementing the directions of the Court and they
  were prima facie guilty of having committed contempt of Court.
  Contempt notices were accordingly issued on 26th March,
F 2003. The officers of the Board appeared before the Court
  and pointed out that the situation was beyond their control but
  they were sternly warned that any further neglect of the Court's
  orders would be viewed seriously. The Court also felt that the
  Court's direction to the concerned officer that if a power cut
G could not be avoided they were to intimate to the Registrar of
  the Court (as to why the power cuts had been imposed) had
  been flouted and the Courts interference was thus essential on
  which further directions were issued on 1st April, 2003 in the
  following terms,
H



                                                                       '
S.K. DASGUPTA & ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH SENGAR & 885
                   ORS.

         "Accordingly, the Director, C.B.I., New Delhi, shall A
   constitute a team of officers not associated with the State
   of M.P. to be headed by an officer not below the rank of
   Joint Director to conduct an impartial enquiry with the help
   of the experts of the Central Electricity Authority on the
   following terms of reference.                                B

          (1) As to reasons leading to v:Jlation of this Court's ·
   order directing not to resort to power cuts after 8.30 in the
   night.

         (2) As to justification being in the nature of situation    c
   beyond control, if any, for power cuts in violation of this
   Court's order after 8.30 in the night:

         (3) As to individual liability of the contemners or any
   other person for deliberate violation of this Court's orders
   in the absence of a justification as such:                    D

        (4) As to veracity of claims of the Boad and the Govt.
   regarding non-availability of surplus electricity form any
   source for purchase at any cost:
          (5) As to willful disobedience by the M.P.S.E.B.,          E
    Headquarters, Jabalpur, if any, by ignoring request of the
    Board's establishment at Gwalior to strictly adhere to this
  . Court's directions on power cuts in the night:

         (6) As to fabrication and manipulation of records, if F
   any, for justification of the Board/the Government's actions
   in resorting to power cuts; and

     '"- (7) As to any other area of enquiry, which the
   Director, C.B.I. thinks appropriate for proper adjudication
   of this Contempt Petition.                                  G
         (10) We would like to indicate that, in view of prima
   facie deliberate violations of this Court's order the only way,
   we are left with to reiterate the rule of law is to punish the
                                                                     H
    886      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A         contemners or persons responsible for such violation by
          warding exemplary punishments

                11 even by involving our powers under Article 215
          of the Constitution of impose punishments proportionate
          to damage caused to the credibility of this Institution,
8
          irrespective of the quantum of sentence prescribed under
          the Contempt of Courts Act. Besides, as there has been
          incidents of suicide by the students, due to power cuts
          during crucial periods of examinations and as there is
          commotion in the society on that count, C.8.1., shall take
c         up the inquiry at the earliest and shall exercise all such
          powers as are enshrined in the Cr.P.C. and other relevant
          statues.

                (11) As it is su~mitted that (i) Shri Baleshwar
D         Sharma, chief Managing Director,, (ii) Shri R.K.Verma,
          Chief managing Director and (iii) Shri R.S.Yadav, Chief
          Engineer, have been inadvertently left out from the array
          of contemners, they are directed to be so added and be
          issued with notices of contempt today itself.
E               (12) the C.8.1. Shall also record all the power cuts
          henceforth and incorporate the same in its report. keeping
          in view the fact, that each power cut shal.1 constitute an
          independent offence of the Contempt of this Court.

F               (13) A copy of this order be immediately sent by a
          special messenger and also by fax to the Director, C.8.1.,
          New Delhi.

               (14) The C.8.1. shall submit an interim report within
          one month and final report within two months."
G
        It is against the order dated 1st April, 2003 that a special
    leave petition was filed and while after issuing notice.
    proceedings before the High Court had been stayed as well.
    The respondents though served have not put in appearance on
H   which leave has also been granted. We have accordingly gone
S.K. DASGUPTA & ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH SENGAR & 887
                   ORS.

through the matter with the assistance of the learned counsel          A
for the appellant.
      We are of the opinion that the directions made by the High
Court in the impugned judgment are clearly beyond the Courts
jurisdiction in a Public Interest Litigation as they interfere with    B
the functioning of independent State agencies in matters which
are beyond their control insofar as uninterrupted supply of
electricity is concerned. We cannot ignore that a shortage of
power is a phenomena common to the entire country and to
single out Members of the Board or the Regulatory Bommission
for failure to comply with the directions of the Court, which are      C
incapable of compliance, is not called for.
      The direction that the matter should be referred to Central
Bureau of Investigation for enquiry is to our mind completely
misplaced. There is no finding of the Court or even a                  D
suggestion of any misconduct on arw attempt to forestall the
uninterrupted supply of ieiectricity to the State or Government
hospitals. We, thus do not find any justification in the direction
that the CBI investigates matters which are purely technical
and administrative in nature. We must emphasize once again             E
that a Public Interest Litigation is to be invoked sparingly and
with rectitude and any order made in this situation must be
reasonable and must not reflect the pique of the Court more
particularly as it is not the Courts business to attempt to run
the Government in a manner which the Court thinks is the               F
proper way. The officers of the Board had repeatedly come to
Court to explain that the situation was beyond their control and
that the short fall in the supply of electric power was not of their
making or in their control. The High court ignored this basic fact
and passed orders which were incapable of compliance.
                                                                       G
    We therefore allow these appeals and set aside the order
dated 1st April 2003 and discharge the contempt proceeding.

R.P.                                            Appeals allowed.