Click the Play button to listen to article

The Gujarat High Court imposed fine of Rs. 1 Lakh on Ahmedabad Collector to be paid from his own salary for disobeying a court order which had directed the official to decide a woman's application seeking permission to use her agricultural land for non-agricultural use. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 309]

In doing so the court observed that when an authority does not obey a court order or approach the court if it has difficulty in complying with the order in time, the only inference drawn is that it does not want to intentionally obey the court order.

The court also said that this was not the first instance where the Collector had acted as a "superpower authority" and tried to act on his own "whim and wish". 

The petitioner had earlier challenged an order passed by the Collector rejecting an application under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code seeking to use agricultural land for non-agricultural use, on the ground of not having the requisite permissions.

The high court had on March 2 allowed the plea directing the petitioner file a fresh application under Section 65 with a direction that it shall be decided within a statutory period by taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019) .

When the petitioner filed a fresh plea on April 7 the same was rejected with an observation that the State authorities are in process of filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the March 2 order. The petitioner moved the high court arguing that till date no such Letters Patent Appeal has been filed, and the application was rejected whereby the petitioner was sent from pillar to post again and again. 

Justice MK Thakker in her order said:

"This is not the first instance where the Collector has acted as a superpower authority and considering himself as a person, who can act according to his own whims and wish. The litigants are relegated to same authorities under the expectation that the wisdom would prevail to the Collector and they would act in accordance with law. In the opinion of this Court, every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the Court with due dignity for the institution. The Government Departments are no exception to it. The department or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per the orders of the Court, and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to"

The court said that whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in complying with court orders, then it is expected from the Government departments or its functionaries to approach the Court promptly by taking appropriate recourse available under the law.

"Where the Government departments neither obeys the order nor approach to the Court in time, then only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the order of the Court. In other words, intentionally not carrying out the order of the Court. Flagrant violation of the Court's order would reflect the attitude of the officer concerned to undermine the authority of the Courts, its dignity and the administration of justice. In the case on hand, the Court is drawing such inference against the officer, viz. the Collector," it added. 

The court opined that the hardship caused to the litigants is required to be compensated by Collector "himself from his own pocket" and thus imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh to be deposited with the court's registry within 1 month by the Collector from his own salary.

It said that if the Collector fails to deposit such amount, then State authority shall deposit the same and recover it from the salary of the Collector. The amount deposited shall be disbursed in favour of the petitioner after due verification by way of an electronic mode. 

The court also quashed the Collector's order, restored the petitioner's application and directed that fresh decision. 

The petition was allowed. 

Tags: