Allahabad High Court
Dharampal Dixit vs Sh. Prashant Trivedi, Additonal ... on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4453 of 2022
Applicant :- Dharampal Dixit
Opposite Party :- Sh. Prashant Trivedi, Additonal Cheif Secretary
Counsel for Applicant :- Araf Khan,Lihazur Rahman Khan
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
This is a second contempt application being filed by the applicant.
Earlier, the applicant had approached this Court through Writ-A No.2302 of 2021, which was disposed of on 16.03.2021 with the following direction:-
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the authority concerned to consider the aforesaid letters dated 1.4.2000 and 22.10.2001 of the Director Ayurved and pass appropriate order expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
The applicant, thereafter, filed Contempt Application (Civil) No.3809 of 2021, wherein the Court after hearing the parties on 01.12.2021 dismissed the contempt application on the ground that the order of the writ Court dated 16.03.2021 was complied with by the authorities and after considering the representation, an order has been passed on 29.11.2021. The order passed on 01.12.2021 is extracted hereas under:-
"Heard.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that in pursuance to the order of the writ Court dated 16.03.2021, the case of the applicant has been considered and an order dated 29.11.2021 has been passed after considering the letters dated 01.04.2000 and 22.10.2001. Copy of the order dated 29.11.2021 has also been handed over to the learned counsel for the applicant today in Court itself.
Considering the aforesaid and the respondent having passed an order dated 29.11.2021, it cannot be said that the respondent now runs in contempt of the order passed by the writ Court. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed leaving it open to the applicant to challenge the said order before appropriate Court in appropriate proceedings."
It appears that the applicant instead of assailing the order dated 29.11.2021 has again filed second contempt application on the same ground alleging that the authorities had not considered the matter on merit and have tried to convince the Court that the question, which was raised during writ proceedings, has not been addressed by the authorities while passing the order on 29.11.2021.
This Court finds that the order of the writ Court dated 16.03.2021 was specific to the extent that the direction was to the authorities to decide the issue without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case. As such, the authorities had passed the order which cannot be looked into by contempt Court exercising power under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Recently, the Apex Court in 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. Relevant para 8 of the judgment is extracted hereas 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."
This Court finds that the applicant has misused the jurisdiction of this Court by successively filing the contempt application, though the earlier contempt application was dismissed on 01.12.2021 on the ground that the order of the writ Court having been complied with, the second contempt application, on the same ground, is not maintainable.
In view of the said fact, contempt application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2022
SK Goswami
