Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that, in pending contempt proceedings, referred the parties to mediation over the appellants' objection, holding that a mandamus upheld by the Supreme Court must be obeyed in letter and spirit, that mediation cannot be forced on an unwilling party, and that the State's demand for the current market price instead of the allotment price was an attempt to defeat the writ. Instead of remanding, it kept the matter pending and directed the Chief Secretary to comply.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, having repeatedly held in contempt proceedings that the State must comply with its writ of mandamus, could refer the dispute to mediation against the objection of the successful writ petitioners.
- Whether the State's demand that the appellants pay the current market value for land it had been directed to convey on the original allotment terms amounted to disobedience of the mandamus.
- Whether an appeal against such an interlocutory order in pending contempt proceedings should be entertained, and what relief should follow.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that a writ issued by a High Court under Article 226 that has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court must be followed in letter and spirit by every authority bound by it, and that the High Court erred in diluting its own mandamus by sending the contempt matter to mediation. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Held
- Mediation must rest on the consent of both parties and cannot be thrust on either of them; the High Court could not refer the contempt matter to mediation over the appellants' resistance merely because the Advocate General said the State would offer an alternative plot. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Having itself held on more than one occasion in the contempt proceedings that the State was bound to comply with the mandamus, and having issued notice to the Chief Secretary, the High Court could not dilute its orders by directing mediation; such an order undermines the dignity and authority of the High Court and is unsustainable. (¶¶ 9, 13, 14)
- Once the High Court's mandamus to convey the plot on the terms of the original allotment letter had attained finality on rejection of the special leave petition, the State was bound to convey on those terms; demanding payment at the current market rate was an attempt to disobey and defeat the mandamus and could be regarded as aggravated contempt. (¶ 11)
- A writ under Article 226 that the Supreme Court has not interfered with must be obeyed in letter and spirit by all authorities bound by it; the majesty of law requires due obedience to the High Court's command. (¶¶ 12, 18)
- Although remand to the High Court would ordinarily follow, the Court declined to remand because the appellants had been pursuing their rights for years after succeeding before the High Court and the Supreme Court, and instead kept the appeals pending to secure compliance with the mandamus. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeals allowed; impugned High Court order in the contempt petitions set aside; matter kept pending in the Supreme Court; the Chief Secretary of West Bengal directed to comply with the High Court's mandamus dated 10 February 2020, failing which he must appear personally on 3 March 2025 to show cause why contempt action should not be taken; listed for compliance on that date.