Allahabad High Court
Natthu Ram vs Aadarsh Dwivedi,Chairperson And ... on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3093 of 2022
Applicant :- Natthu Ram
Opposite Party :- Aadarsh Dwivedi,Chairperson And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The writ Court on 02.02.2022 had required the opposite party to look into the grievance of the applicant and consider the same and if there is no legal impledment, clear the post retiral dues of the applicant. Pursuant to the order of writ Court, the opposite party has cleared the post retiral dues of the applicant. This fact has been stated in para 4 of the affidavit of compliance.
3. Today, when the matter was taken up, an order dated 23.11.2022 has been placed before the Court, which is taken on record, which indicates that further amount of Rs.50,000/- was given to the applicant on 18.11.2022.
4 Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to raise dispute in regard to the amount, which has been paid to the applicant mentioned para 6 of the counter affidavit.
5. This Court finds that such disputed question of fact cannot be dealt with under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 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 the while dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry. 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."
6. From perusal of the order of the writ Court dated 02.02.2022 is it clear that the Court had only directed the opposite party to look into the grievance of the applicant and consider the same and in case no legal impediment was found, the retiral dues were to be paid. This Court while exercising power under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot do roving enquiry as held by the Apex Court and the disputed question of payment cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings.
7. In view of the said fact, as the order of writ Court has been complied with, the contempt application is dismissed.
8. Contempt notice stand discharged.
9. File consigned to records.
Order Date :- 14.12.2022
Kushal
