Allahabad High Court
Smt Bala Devi vs Mr. Maya Ram, District Basic ... on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5250 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt Bala Devi
Opposite Party :- Mr. Maya Ram, District Basic Education Officer
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashwat Shukla
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Shashwat Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
The writ Court on 09.09.2020 while disposing off the Writ-A No. 6399 of 2020 passed the following order;
"Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has filed the representation for payment of gratuity to which the petitioner claims she is entitled on account of death of her husband Sri Baini Singh, however no decision has been taken thereupon.
Considering the fact that the representation is pending before the respondent no. 3, the petition is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation raising all the grievances that the petitioner wishes to raise before the respondent no. 3 within a period of three weeks from today alongwith a copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court, which shall be treated as certified copy of this order. In the event such an application is filed, the respondent no. 3 shall pass a reasoned order on the said application within a period of two months from the date of filing of the application."
Pursuant to the order passed by the writ Court, the authorities on 12.02.2021 passed the order deciding the representation of the applicant, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No. 1 to the affidavit of compliance.
This Court finds that the order of writ Court was only to the extent to decide the representation, in case, the applicant moves a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the authority concerned. The opposite party, pursuant to the directions of writ Court, has passed an order on 12.02.2021.
The Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held that under the contempt jurisdiction, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and proceed to decide an issue which has not been dealt with or decided by the Court of first instance, whose order is said to have been flouted. Disputed question of fact can only be adjudicated before the appropriate forum and not before the contempt Court. Relevant para 8 of the judgment is extracted here as under:
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "willful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigor when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
In view of the above, as the order of writ Court was only to the extent to decide the representation of the applicant which the authorities have done, no case for contempt is made out.
Contempt application is dismissed, accordingly.
Contempt notice stands discharged.
File consign to record.
However, in case, applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the opposite party, he has the remedy to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, if so advised.
Order Date :- 23.8.2022
Shekhar
