Apex court relief for widow

New Delhi, Jan. 28: The Supreme Court has come to the rescue of a widow from Ranipool in East Sikkim who was asked by the high court to either vacate the rented premises from which her husband had run a grocery store for over 30 years or face arrest.

Sikkim High Court had also imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on Shanti Devi and issued non-bailable warrants against her for contempt of court.

Setting aside that order, the Supreme Court today flayed the high court for adopting a “draconian, arbitrary and authoritarian” approach in dealing with the case.

The widow had applied for a fresh trade licence from state authorities after her husband passed away. That was rejected on the ground that the landlord was objecting to it and she was asked to close her business from October 15, 2004.

Shanti Devi then approached the high court challenging the authorities’ move to refuse her a licence. She also sought exemption from complying with the clause that required her to obtain a no-objection certificate from the landlord on the ground that he was determined to evict her.

The high court passed an order on June 26, 2006, asking her to move out and imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on her without giving any reasons.

Shanti Devi was asked to comply with the order within a week.

On July 4, 2006, a day after that period lapsed, the high court acted immediately on a contempt petition filed by the landlord, issued a non-bailable warrant against her and directed police to produce her in court.

The police were also directed to vacate her house by force. All her possessions were to be auctioned and the house handed over to the landlord. This despite the fact that Shanti Devi was at that time in Delhi trying to move the apex court against the order and had not personally received the initial order

A bench of justices, Ashok Bhan and Altamas Kabir, criticised the high court action. The bench said the order did not address the issues raised by the widow, who was the one to approach the court for justice. Instead it appeared to be more of an effort to give relief to the landlord.

The Supreme Court said the action was a “gross abuse of the due process of law which cannot at all be sustained” and directed that the landlord restore Shanti Devi’s grocery-cum-stationery shop to her within a fortnight.