Summary
An industrial operator committed contempt by knowingly continuing prohibited industrial activity in residential premises for years despite the Court’s closure directions and his undertaking. Later de-sealing proceedings did not erase that breach. The Court imposed the selected higher-fine, shorter-imprisonment option with a stated default alternative.
Issues
- Whether continued industrial misuse despite personal undertaking constituted deliberate contempt and what punishment followed.
Held
- The operator’s own affidavit established knowledge of the closure directions and promise to shift. Continued activity until detection in March 2015, despite an allotted industrial plot, established conscious and deliberate disobedience. (¶ 4–13)
- The operator acknowledged his grave mistake and tendered an unqualified apology. Given the prolonged breach, the Court imposed punishment rather than pardoning the contempt, allowing a fine/imprisonment alternative according to financial capacity. (¶ 14–16)
Result
Contempt petition disposed of. Sanjay Gupta to surrender on 1 August 2017 for ten days and deposit Rs.10,000 per month of misuse by that date; failing timely payment, three months’ imprisonment and Rs.1,000 per month. Fine directed to the Advocate-on-Record Welfare Trust.