Gopal Gupta v. Sunil Kumar Sinha & Ors.

8. The proceedings in the aforesaid last Writ Petition led to the passing of the following directions dated 12.04.2021. It would be relevant to reproduce the said order in toto, which reads as under:- “The hearing has been conducted through Video Conference. CRL.M.A. 5946/2021 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 821/2021 CRL.M.A. 5945/2021

1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Show Cause Notice dated 26th September, 2019 issued to the petitioner subsequent to the arrest, search and seizure dated 24th April, 2019 and 25th April, 2019 as also seeks setting aside of the proceedings under Sections 104, 100//102, 105, 110 and 124 of the Customs Act and the proceedings emanating therefrom, in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.1827/2018 titled as M/s Canon India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs decided on 9th March, 2021, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court categorically held that if it was intended that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who are officers of Central Government should be entrusted with functions of the Customs officers, it was imperative that the Central Government should have done so in exercise of its powers under Section 6 of the Act. Dealing with the notification dated 2nd May, 2012, relied upon by the respondent, which confers the various functions referred to in Column (3) of the notification under the Customs Act on officers referred to in Column (2), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the Section under which the notification has been issued does not confer any power on any authority to entrust any functions to the officers. It was also held that the notification which purports to entrust functions as proper officer under the Customs Act has been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of non-existing power under Section 2 (34) of the Customs Act, hence was invalid.

2. Notice.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent accepts notice.

4. Reply affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within three weeks thereafter.

5. List this petition on 26th July, 2021.

6. Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 26th September, 2019 arising out of file bearing No. F.No. DRI/HQ-GI/338/VI/ENQ-2/INT- NIL/2019 before the respondent are stayed

7. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.” {Bold letters emphasis supplied}

9. The petitioner now knocks on the doors of this Court again alleging that every time there is a judicial order in their favour, the DRI institutes a new civil or criminal case, or directs or prevails upon some other Government agency, to target the petitioner and/or his colleagues/employees and thereby somehow keeps the petitioner embroiled in legal battles. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent officials of the DRI have scant disregard to the directions of this Court dated 12.04.2021, which specifically directed that no proceedings shall be initiated arising out of SCN dated 26.09.2019 emanating out of the file bearing No. DRI/HQ-GI/338/VI/ENQ- 2/INT-NIL/2019, but they now, with ulterior motives and out of grudges, have instituted a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate titled „Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs M/s Its My Name Pvt. Ltd.’ Through this they also arrayed six more proposed accused, namely Sh. Rahul Gupta, Smt. Purnima Gupta, Sh. Amit Pal Singh, Mohd. Nashruddin, Sh. Gopal Gupta and Sh. Vikram Bhasin hence, seeking their prosecution under Section 132, 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(c) & 136(1) punishable under Sections 132, 135(1)(I)(A), 135(1)(I)(B) and 136(1) read with Section 140 of the Act.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES.

10. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents urged that the respondents are merely launching independent criminal prosecution against the petitioner and others which is de hors of any direction by this Court and is legally permissible under the Act. He has referred to the decision in Sudhir Vasudeva M. Geroge Ravisekaran & Ors.13 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court vide paragraph (19) that “the Court must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered.”

11. Then relying on the decision in Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak14 by the Supreme Court, it was urged that if an order or direction of a Court “is capable of more than one interpretation, then it can never be said that if one interpretation is adopted, it would amount to wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court.” Reference was invited to paragraph (28) of the aforesaid judgment wherein it was held that “two conditions have to be satisfied: (1) that the order was ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, and that (2) that the party being proceeded against in fact did not intend to disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with his interpretations of the order.”

12. Learned Senior Standing Counsel then referred to the decision in Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors.15 and recited the observations in paragraph (13) which is reproduced as under:

13. Before proceeding with the matter further, certain basic statutory features ought to be noticed at this juncture. The Contempt of Courts Act,1971 has been introduced in the statutebook for the purposes of securing of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country - undoubtedly a powerful weapon hands of the law courts but that by itself operates as a string of caution unless thus otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the statute. The observation as above finds support from a decision of this Court in Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati wherein one of us (Banerjee, J.) stated as below C p. 532, para 2) "2. As regards the burden and standard of proof, the common leg phraseology the who asserts must prove' has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the 'standard of proof', be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasicriminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt."

14. Similar is the situation in Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and as such we need not dilate thereon further as to the burden and standard of proof vis-à-vis the Contempt of Courts Act - suffice it to record that powers under the Act should be exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the country. Exercise of power within the meaning of the Act of 1971 shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter on which there exists no doubt as regards the initiation of the action being bona fide.

15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 - the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation - the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise.

13. Learned Senior Standing Counsel then relied on the decision in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India16 to canvass the point that despite there being an honourable acquittal of a public servant, the government can not be precluded from proceeding to compulsory retire the delinquent individual and when the facts are overlapping, both civil and criminal proceedings can be resorted to by the Government in appropriate cases. Attention of the Court was also invited to a Circular No. 27/2015-Customs dated 23.10.201517 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs (Anti-Smuggling Unit), wherein the guidelines in para 6.[2] reads as under:

6.2. In a recent judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radhe Shyam Kejriwal [2011(266)ELT 294 16 W.P. (C) 11177/2020 decided on 22.09.2021 (DHC) F.No. 394/68/2013- CUS (AS) (SC)], the Apex Court had, interalia, observed that (i) adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings can be launched simultaneously; (ii) decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent of each other in nature and (iv) the findings against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution. In view of aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is reiterated that if the party deliberately delays completion of adjudication proceedings, prosecution may be launched even during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings, where offence is grave and qualitative evidences are available.

14. Further, taking this Court through the decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.18, he vehemently urged that that adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously and the decision in the adjudication proceedings need to be available or passed necessarily before criminal prosecution. It was vehemently urged that adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other and the finding rendered in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution. It was also pointed out that it has been clearly laid down that adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent Court of law to attract the provision of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.

15. Lastly, reference was invited to decision in P. Jayappan v. S. K. Perumal19 wherein the following observations were made in paragraph (5):-

“In the criminal case all the ingredients of the offence in question have to be established in order to secure the conviction of the accused. The criminal court no doubt has to give due regard to the result of any proceeding under the Act having a bearing on the question in issue and in an appropriate case it may drop the proceedings in the light of an order passed under the Act. It does not, however, mean that the result of a proceeding under the Act would be binding on the criminal court, The criminal court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it. Otherwise there is a danger of a contention being advanced that whenever the assessee or any other person liable under the Act has failed to convince the authorities in the proceedings under the Act that he has not deliberately made any false statement or that he has not fabricated any material evidence, the conviction of such person should invariably follow in the criminal court.”

16. Per contra, Mr. Madhav Khurana, learned counsel for the petitioner was mercifully brief but vociferously urged that the impugned directions have been passed in a Writ Petition wherein the petitioner has been seeking the setting aside of the criminal prosecution under various provisions of the Act emanating from file bearing No. DRI/HQ-GI/338/VI/ENQ-2/INT-NIL/2019 inter alia declaration of arrest effect as illegal seeking quashing of seizure memo and sanction for prosecution and in other words, entire proposed criminal action against the petitioner was under challenge. Learned counsel referred to the order dated 03.06.2019 in (Annexure- C[4]) passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi wherein a categorical observations was made that “the jewellery if exported for exhibition purpose, has to be imported back so as to claim the exemption of duty and if the similar jewellery in similar quantity is not imported back, then the duty is leviable. It is not explained that as to how the duty could be saved by replacing the larger quantity of bills of entries of jewellery in India by bill of entry of smaller quantity. Further, it is also pertinent to mention that no recovery was effected from the possession of co-accused Gopal Gupta and Mohd. Nashruddin in this case. It is also pertinent to mention that the statement of the accused persons recorded by DRI officials u/s 108 Customs Act have already been retracted and it is alleged by the accused persons therein that their statements were taken under threat and pressure”.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the observations made by the CESTAT in its order dated 13.11.2019 and the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 01.06.2020, besides the fact that the SLP preferred by the DRI was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The main plank of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the instant criminal complaint filed with the learned CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, pursuant to the sanction granted on 31.01.2023 by respondent No. 1 is emanating from the same file, which is subject matter of the writ and directions of this Court dated 12.04.2021. It was urged that the vindictiveness of the officials concerned is writ large from the fact that the entire sequence of litigation between the parties and favourable orders passed in favour of the petitioner have been concealed from the Court, and in this regard reference was invited to the documents filed, and it was urged that the respondent officials of the DRI are hell-bent in harassing and tormenting the petitioner and others associated with IMNPL by entangling them in a fruitless criminal proceedings.

18. In his submissions, learned counsel relied on the decision in Hastings Mills Ltd. v. Hira Singh & Ors.20, to buttress the point that the respondent officials have been actively involved in foisting one case after the other against the petitioner and others associated with the affairs of IMNPL. The respondent officials are not acting in a bonafide manner while discharging their duties, and rather abusing their powers and authority vested with them. Mr. Khurana, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the decisions, which have been heavily relied upon by the learned senior standing counsel for the DRI. Referring to the Circular No. 27/2015-Customs dated 23.10.2015, it was vehemently urged that the respondent officials very conveniently are telling one side of the story and have completely overlooked the guidelines set down in para Nos. 6.2, 7.1,7.[2] & 7.3.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

19. This Court has considered the elaborate submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. This Court has also gone through the entire record of the case including the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties besides case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents.

20. First things first, on filing of the present petition, this Court passed the following order on 14.06.2023, which is reproduced as under:-

21. Alluding to the observations made by the then learned Single Judge vide paragraph (3) of the above said order, this Court cannot agree more. Although, the said view was a prima facie and not binding as such but the whole history of litigation between the parties tell its own tale that the respondents are hell-bent upon harassing the petitioner company not only by repeatedly passing adverse orders against them but also foisting one prosecution or the other against them by manifestly abusing the powers vested with them.

22. At the cost of repetition, the whole genesis of the dispute emanates from the action taken by the respondents/Customs/DRI on 24.04.2019. The seizure of the gold jewellery at the Airport on such date and the justification of the purported action that was taken by the Customs/DRI was extensively dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 01.06.2020. It was categorically held that the seizure vide Bill of Entry No. 10710 dated 26.02.2019 with corresponding Job Entry 109254 dated 26.02.2019 was not justified and the findings of the CESTAT in paragraph (26) of the order dated 13.11.2019 were approved to the effect that the Assessing Officer after scrutiny of all the relevant documents and on satisfaction had allowed the clearance of the imported gold jewellery and had endorsed that the imported gold jewellery was the same which had been exported under two shipping bills. The said findings were not assailed by the ADG, DRI at any stage thereafter. Instead what was traversed was that the petitioner albeit the company IMNPL had smuggled the gold jewellery into India by illegally availing the benefit of the Notification No. 45/2017 dated 30.06.2017 read with Notification NO. 21/2019-Cus. dated 24.04.2019. It would be expedient to re-produce the observations of the learned Judges of the Division Bench which are as follows:-

23. Further, the Division Bench did not find any blemish in the impugned order, allowing provisional release of 25400.06 grams of gold jewellery covered by registered and signed Bill of Entry dated 20.04.2019. It would be pertinent to mention the observations at paragraph (73) of the Division Bench:

24. It is further pertinent to mention that in so far as the issue regarding unnumbered Bill of Entry under Section 46 of the Act at the Airport for the jewellery in the baggage is concerned, a Review Petition No. 117/2020 in CUSAA No. 229/2019 was preferred and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2023(Annexure C-7) as under: “31....In respect of gold jewellery, which was exported for exhibitions and re-imported into the country, the procedure of filing of a B/E, under section 46 of the Customs Act, was inapplicable. Also, the regular provisions applying for import of baggage appear to have been substituted, in case of such re-import, by the procedure envisaged by Clauses 2(xii) and 2(xiii) of the SOP dated 29th March 2016 supra.”

25. As per Mr. Khurana, learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order precipitated filing of the criminal complaint before the learned CMM. Be that as it may, the plea by Mr. Zoheb Hossain that launching of criminal prosecution in question in the Court of learned CMM is independent legal remedy available with the DRI/Customs, with regard to which he alluded to the provisions of Section 132 and 135 besides Section 137 of the Act, is although impressive but it does not cut much ice. The directions of this Court vide order dated 12.04.2021 were very specific that proceedings pursuant to the SCN dated 26.09.2019 arising out of file i.e., F.No. DRI/HQ- GI/338/VI/ENQ-2/INT-NIL/2019 shall remain stayed. The aforesaid directions were given in the context of the petitioner seeking relief for quashing of proceedings initiated or to be initiated vide the aforesaid main file under Section 104, 100, 102, 105,110 and 124 of the Act and hold the arrest, search and seizure dated 24.04.2019, 25.04.2019 and the SCN dated 26.09.2019 as invalid and unconditional.

26. It is pertinent to mention that the sanction letter under Section 137 of the Act dated 30.01.2023 for launching criminal prosecution bears same file number and pertains to the proceeding which have been stayed by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2021. It would not be out of place to mention here that the SCN dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-29) issued by Mr. Vivek Chaturvedi, Principal Additional Director General DRI (Hqrs.), New Delhi, is an exhaustive one which runs into 200 pages and the contents thereof have not been reproduced herein for the sake of brevity but forms Anneuxre-A to this Judgment.

27. Even a bare perusal of the complaint, which is now filed before the learned CMM, New Delhi the complete set of which was supplied during the course of hearing before this Court, would show that the foundation of the allegation and the entire narrative are based ditto as contained in the aforesaid SCN. It also stares on the face of the record that in the process of filing such complaint for the purposes of consideration of materials for taking cognizance of offences, the DRI has deliberately omitted to place on record the afore referred orders passed in the matter in favour of the petitioner and others associated with the IMNPL, including deliberate omission to file orders passed by the CESTAT dated 13.11.2019 as also the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 01.06.2020 and also the review order dated 26.05.2023.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that this is not the first time where an attempt has been made to over-reach the directions of the Court. Earlier, CONT.CAS. (C) 34/2023 was filed against the respondent No.1, Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, when an attempt was made to adjudicate upon the SCN dated 26.09.2019, which led this Court to pass the order dated 11.01.2023, which is reproduced as under: “On 12.04.2021, this Court had directed “Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2019 arising out of file bearing No. F. No. DRI/HQ- GI/338/VI/ENQ-2/INTNIL/2019 before the respondent are stayed”. The said interim order has continued till date. Vide the order of 05.01.2023, notice for physical hearing in respect of show cause No. DRI/HQ-GI/338/VI/ENQ-2/INT-NIL/2019 dated 26.09.2019 has been issued. Mr. Gupta, Additional Director, DRI, who is present in Court states on instructions that notice dated 05.01.2023 against all 11 noticees except Mr. Neeraj Aneja stands withdrawn. His statement is taken on record. In this view of the matter, nothing survives in the contempt petition and the same is disposed of as having become infructuous.”

29. The record shows that there was another attempt to over-reach the order dated 12.04.2021 when the DRI purportedly invoked its power under Section 110AA of the Act in respect of the same, they sent a report to the Commissioner (Import), which forced the petitioner to approach this Court in CONT CAS (C) 538/2023, which led to passing of the order dated 27.04.2023, which is as follows: “This is a petition seeking contempt proceedings against respondent for disobedience of order dated 12.04.2021 passed in WP.CRL. 821/2021 titled “Gopal Gupta vs. Principal Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi”. Mr. Hossain, learned special counsel who appears on advance notice, requests for and is granted 1 week to file a preliminary affidavit in opposition. It is stated by Mr. Hossain on instructions that the hearing pursuant to the notice dated 06.04.2023 shall be adjourned beyond the date fixed by this Court.”

30. I fail to see any substance in the plea canvassed by the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents that the directions of this Court dated 12.04.2021 are subject to more than one interpretation. By all means, the said directions are categorical to the effect that no process shall be initiated arising from the main file. There could be no quarrel with the proposition of law that the adjudication proceedings and the criminal proceedings can be launched simultaneously against the same person(s) but then the SCN dated 26.09.2019 arising from the main file in question is under a cloud in view of the decision by the CESTAT as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, and it is in the said backdrop, this Court directed that no action shall be taken arising out of file No. DRI/HQ-GI/338/VI/ENQ- 2/INTNIL/2019. Hence, the dictum in the cases of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and Radha Kishan Kejriwal (supra) cannot be applied in the given facts and circumstances of the instant matter.

31. This Court can very well see through the design of the respondent officials, who very conveniently alluded to paragraph No. (6.2) of the Circular No. 27/15-Customs dated 23.10.2015, so as to buttress the purported action taken by them but at the same time miserably failing to adhere to the other relevant guidelines vide Clause 7 of the above mentioned circular21.

32. The long and short of the foregoing discussion is that the manner in which the proceedings after proceedings are being foisted upon the petitioner and others besides the company in question, leave a lasting impression that there is a repeated, deliberate and contumacious attempt by the respondents officers to corner them from all angles, evidently to harass and prosecute the petitioner by whatever means in terms of purported action by intentionally over-reaching the directions of this Court.

33. It goes without saying that the sanction accorded under Section 137 of the Act appears to be hit by the dictum propounded by the 21 7.1. In all such cases, where prior approval of Chief Commissioner/Principal CC or DGRI / Pr. DGRI is necessary for launching prosecution, an investigation report for the purpose of launching prosecution (as per Annexure- I), should be carefully prepared and signed by the Assistant Commissioner / Assistant Director concerned. The investigation report, after careful scrutiny (for incorporation of all relevant facts) should be endorsed by the Commissioner/ Pr. Commr. or ADGRI/ Pr. ADGRI. The Chief Commissioner/Principal CC or DGRI / Pr. DGRI should ensure that a decision about launching of prosecution or otherwise, is taken after careful analysis of evidence available on record and communicated to the Commissioner/Principal CC or ADGRI/Pr.

7.2. In all other cases, where prior approval of Chief Commissioner/Principal CC or DGRI / Pr. DGRI is not required, the decision about launching of prosecution or otherwise should be taken by the Commissioner/ Pr.Commr. or ADGRI / Pr.

ADGRI after careful application of mind and analysis of evidence brought on record. This should be completed within a month of adjudication of the case (unless it is decided to go for prosecution even prior to adjudication in certain category of cases mentioned at para 6 above).

7.3. Prosecution should not be filed merely because a demand has been confirmed in the adjudication proceedings particularly in cases of technical nature or where interpretation of law is involved. One of the important considerations for deciding whether prosecution should be launched is the availability of adequate evidence. The standard of proof required in a criminal prosecution is higher as the case has to be established beyond reasonable doubt whereas the standard of proof in adjudication proceedings is decided on the basis of preponderance of probability. Therefore, even cases where demand is confirmed in adjudication proceedings, evidence collected should be weighed so as to likely meet the test of being reasonable doubt for recommending & sanctioning prosecution. Decision should be taken on case- to- case basis Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs22, in which it was held that “the DRI officers are not customs officers, and therefore, not proper authority in law to initiate proceedings under the Act.” In the process, evidently again, the respondents appear to have been instrumental in the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner and others connected with the company besides the company itself by other agencies including the DGFT as well as the Central Bureau of Investigation23. The DRI is an apex organisation and launching prosecution at its behest must demonstrate fairness in action and conformity with the letters and spirit of the law and the Constitutional norms. Such malicious prosecution does not auger well for the system administration of justice and has the tendency to erode credibility of the organisation.

34. To sum up, there was a categorical direction by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2021 that no coercive process shall be initiated pursuant to SCN and the main file in question bearing No. F.No. DRI/HQ-G/338/VI/ENG-2/INT-NIL/2019 dated 26.09.2019. The filing of the complaint before the Court of learned CMM for initiating action under different provisions of the Act is based on sanction accorded by respondent No.1 arising from the same main file and by deliberately suppressing the directions and orders passed in favour of the petitioner. Evidently, the SCN arising out of the main file is under considering various factors, such as, gravity of offence, quantum of duty evaded and the nature as well as quality of evidence collected.

a cloud and once the very foundation is on a sticky wicket, the purported prosecution is not fathomable. The purported prosecution entails a heavy burden on the entire justice delivery system at a huge cost, time and efforts on the part of the Court after Court. Therefore, this Court finds the respondents guilty of committing patent breach of the directions passed by this Court and holds them guilty for committing a civil contempt under Section 2(b) read with Section 11 and 12 of the CC Act.

35. In view of the foregoing discussion, let notice be issued to the respondent officials for the next date of hearing i.e., 14.02.2024 to show cause as to why they should not be punished under Section 2 (b) read with Section 11 and 12 of the CC Act for being in gross violation of the directions of this Court dated 12.04.2021.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 19, 2023