Summary
The Court set aside contempt sentences imposed on NTPC officers over recruitment of land oustees. The underlying order fixed a completion timeline but did not prohibit a fresh recruitment notification or require exclusive use of the 2017 notification. Issuing a fresh notification therefore did not establish deliberate and wilful disobedience. The officers’ unconditional apology was accepted.
Issues
- Whether issuing a fresh recruitment notification breached the terms of the High Court’s direction so as to constitute wilful contempt.
- Whether the contempt punishment should stand in the circumstances, including the unconditional apology.
Held
- The recruitment judgment prescribed completion within two months and consequential appointments but did not specify that recruitment had to proceed only under the 2017 notification. The manner of recruitment remained within the officers’ discretion, and a fresh notification did not by itself constitute contempt. (¶¶ 11, 13)
- Read against the actual terms of the order, the officers’ conduct did not establish deliberate and wilful disobedience. The Court also noted the submission that provisional appointment orders had been issued while contempt proceedings were pending. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The unconditional apology was appropriate for acceptance in these circumstances, and the two-month simple-imprisonment sentence and fines were set aside. The Court did not direct appointment of the respondents in this decision. (¶¶ 12, 14, 15)
Result
Appeals allowed; unconditional apology accepted and contempt sentences imposed on the appellants set aside. Pending applications disposed of.