A Colourable Exercise of Power Can’t Mask Contempt: Tripura High Court Quashes DM’s Order Passed in Defiance of Stay on Petrol Pump Closure

High Court of Tripura guilty of wilful disobedience of a judicial order, for issuing a closure order of a petrol pump despite the Court’s interim stay on cancellation of its NOC. The Court, invoking its powers under Section 12 read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution, quashed the executive order dated 24.10.2025 and imposed costs on the respondent-contemnor, terming his actions a blatant circumvention of judicial authority.

“Disguised Administrative Action Based on Same Facts Violates the Sanctity of a Judicial Stay”: Court Finds Wilful Disobedience

The Court's central finding was that the respondent-contemnor, with full knowledge of the High Court’s interim stay order dated 07.10.2025, initiated fresh proceedings under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 — using the same fire safety report already under judicial scrutiny — and passed an order for closure of the petitioner’s petrol pump. Justice Biswajit Palit categorically held:

“The respondent-contemnor, bypassing the earlier order dated 07.10.2025 passed by this Court… wilfully disobeyed the said order on the same subject matter invoking separate jurisdiction, which shows arbitrariness.”

Calling the action a "colourable exercise of power", the Court found that the District Magistrate's conduct directly violated the scope and purpose of the stay and thus constituted civil contempt.

“Interim Order Must Be Respected in Spirit and Substance”: Court Restores Rule of Law

The case arose from W.P.(C) No. 598 of 2025, wherein the petitioner-firm M/s Biswas & Sons, a partnership firm running a petrol pump, had challenged the cancellation of its NOC dated 26.09.2025. This cancellation was based on reports from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (dated 23.09.2025) and Divisional Fire Officer (dated 18.09.2025), which the High Court had stayed on 07.10.2025, stating:

“The petitioner has got a good prima facie case… accordingly, any action on ‘cancellation of No Objection Certificate’ dated 26.09.2025… be stayed till disposal of the writ petition.”

Despite the clear language of the stay, the District Magistrate, after receiving the order on 09.10.2025, proceeded to initiate fresh but parallel proceedings, culminating in a closure order dated 24.10.2025, again citing the same fire report.

The Court noted: “The respondent-contemnor, having full knowledge, directed the Divisional Fire Officer to submit a fresh report… proceeded to pass a closure order on 24.10.2025 — this reflects a clear attempt to achieve indirectly what was stayed by this Court.”

“High Office Does Not Insulate Against Contempt”: Court Relies on Supreme Court Precedents

Referring to authoritative precedents, Justice Palit drew strength from the Supreme Court’s judgment in All Bengal Excise Licensees’ Association v. Raghabendra Singh, where the Apex Court condemned executive officers who violate stay orders by taking alternative routes to achieve forbidden outcomes.

The Court quoted: “A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof… the wrong perpetrated… in contumacious disregard of the order… should not be permitted to hold good.”

In line with Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., the Court reaffirmed that:

“The contemner should not be allowed to enjoy or retain the fruits of his contempt.”

The Court clarified that punishing for contempt is not the sole remedy — courts also have a duty to undo the administrative effects of the contemptuous act to uphold public confidence in judicial authority.

“Alternative Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Nullify a Judicial Stay”: High Court Nullifies Disaster Management Action

The respondent had invoked Sections 30 and 34 of the Disaster Management Act, ostensibly to exercise powers for public safety. However, the Court rejected this justification outright, holding that the invocation of an alternative statute did not cure the illegality of the executive’s intent.

Justice Palit noted: “The respondent-contemnor acted beyond the statutory provisions… the order passed was in excess of jurisdiction and in clear breach of this Court’s direction.”

It was also pointed out that the order lacked even basic procedural integrity — the underlying complaint was unsigned, and the respondent had not obtained the concurrence of the District Authority under Section 25 of the Disaster Management Act, further undermining its legality.

“Contempt Powers Include Setting Aside Illegally Obtained Administrative Orders”: Article 215 Invoked

In a strong assertion of judicial authority, the High Court relied on Article 215 of the Constitution to not just punish for contempt, but to also restore status quo ante.

The Court held: “In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the High Court can nullify an executive order passed in wilful disobedience of its directions.”

Rejecting the defence that the action created a “new cause of action,” the Court observed that the entire sequence — from the show-cause notice to the final closure order — was merely a disguised continuation of the very NOC cancellation that was judicially stayed.

“Judiciary’s Dignity Must Be Preserved Against Executive Evasion”: Court Finds Civil Contempt Made Out

While acknowledging that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with caution, the Court held that the facts of this case — particularly the respondent’s continued reliance on the same reports and procedural ruses — clearly established wilful disobedience as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

“The respondent-contemnor is found guilty of wilful disobedience of the order dated 07.10.2025… the subsequent order dated 24.10.2025… is held to be illegal and without jurisdiction and thereby stands quashed.”

“Authority Must Act Within Law, Not Outside It”: Court Imposes Cost for Violation

Considering the constitutional office of the contemnor and the facts of the case, the Court imposed a token cost of ₹2,000 on the District Magistrate, to be paid within 15 days to the petitioner. Though minimal, this cost was a symbolic censure to reinforce the principle that even high-ranking public officials are not above the law.

Justice Palit concluded:“The sanctity of a judicial stay cannot be defeated by shifting statutory umbrellas. Rule of law demands respect for judicial orders, not administrative creativity to override them.”

Date of Decision: 12.11.2025