Babus' Disrespect for High Court Orders Deprecated
IN the above order, though the High Court ruled against the exporter, it was not happy with the behaviour of the Commerce Secretary.
Actually the Bombay High Court had earlier (even before the YUM decision of Delhi High Court came) directed the Commerce Secretary to take a decision in terms of law as expeditiously as possible. ()
By the time the Commerce Secretary took his decision and passed an order against the exporters, the Delhi High Court order had been pronounced and he was BOUND by it. But he so ignored both the Delhi High Court judgement and the Bombay High Court directions that he did not even mention these orders in his DECISION.
The Bombay High Court observed,
While it is true that the Secretary should have been aware that there was an order passed by this Court with great expectation and hope. That expectation and hope is that Government Department and members of the Executive will be fully conscious of their role. Framing a Policy may be the prerogative of those elected by a specific process, however interpretation of all policies rests with the Executive. The members of the bureaucracy are therefore answerable to the people of India. They cannot evolve parameters to interpret the policies contrary to public interest. When in employment and interpreting a policy, Rules or regulations, they ought to be aware that any decision by a Court of law has a binding effect on the Central Government. That a view taken by a Court of law especially by a High Court of a State may not bind other High Courts and in the least the Hon'ble Supreme Court but, its binding nature is something which cannot be questioned by the Central Government. More so, when the Union of India was a party respondent to the Writ Petitions filed by M/s Yum Restaurants, M/s Nokia's Solutions and Networks (P)Ltd and M/s EI Dupont (India) P.Ltd. The judgment of the learned Single Judge delivered on 27th January 2015 was in force and ought to have been referred by the Central Government in the present petitioner's case. Its binding effect cannot be diluted or whittled down by the Central Government just because the parties before it are operating from Maharashtra and the Central Government was deciding the matter pursuant to the directions of the Bombay High Court. Pertinently, the Delhi High Court view is not set aside till date .
The High Court passed the mildest possible strictures observing,
We disapprove and deprecate the manner in which the Secretary passed the order impugned in this writ petition. It was his duty to make a reference to the judgment and decisions cited before him particularly when he was sitting at Delhi and passing the impugned order on behalf of the Central Government at Delhi. The judgment of the Delhi High Court definitely therefore, deserved to be looked at with respect and due regard and considered in depth. We would expect this much from the Secretary in the Department of Ministry of Commerce and Industry. A copy of this order be forwarded to him and these observations being brought to his notice, we hope hereafter such mistakes and errors will not be committed by him .
Even while upholding his order, the High Court was forced to comment adversely on the attitude of the Commerce Secretary.
Yet another instance to show that our babus have only contempt for the judiciary and because of the sagely kindness of the wise judges, they almost always get away with this contempt and every time it happens, what goes up is their contempt for judiciary and not respect.