Suresh Chandra vs Anand Kulkarni,(A.C.P) And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11751 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4970 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Suresh Chandra
 
Opposite Party :- Anand Kulkarni,(A.C.P) And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Samadhiya
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Earlier, the applicant had approached the writ Court for quashing the order dated 21.08.2020 and 09.07.2020 passed by opposite parties. The writ Court on 26.07.2021 while allowing Writ-A No. 8220 of 2021 had set aside the orders impugned therein.

The matter was remitted back to authorities to consider the entire matter afresh. The authorities on 14.05.2022 had considered the claim of the applicant post remand of the matter.

I find that claim of the applicant has already been adjudicated by the competent authority and this Court exercising power under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act cannot go into the disputed question of fact as held by 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. Para 8 of the said judgment is extracted hereasunder:-

"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" 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 wilfulness 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 vigour 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 said fact, the contempt application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed, however, leaving it open to the applicant to challenge the order passed by opposite party before appropriate forum, if so advised.

Order Date :- 30.8.2022

V.S.Singh