Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Singh vs Shri Manish Verma, District ... on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6694 of 2022
Applicant :- Mukesh Singh
Opposite Party :- Shri Manish Verma, District Magistrate, Jaunpur And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Krishna Kant Vishwakarma
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indra Bhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The writ Court on 14.3.2022 had directed the opposite party to conclude the pending inquiry within a period of three months.
3. On 14.11.2022, instructions were sought from learned Standing Counsel. Today, when the case was taken up, learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court the instructions so received by him, which is taken on record.
4. According to Sri Indra Bhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel, the inquiry has concluded on 06.12.2022.
5. Sri R.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contended that it was the preliminary inquiry which has been done by the opposite party and not the inquiry, which was pending before the opposite party, as directed by the writ Court. He then tried to impress upon the Court that under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the proceedings against the ex-Pradhan could be carried out even though the term has come to an end.
6. I have heard the respective counsel and perused the material on record.
7. This is a case where certain complaints were made against the Pradhan. The term of Pradhan has came to an end in January, 2021 and elections were held in entire State of U.P. in the month of April, 2021. It appears that after the term of Pradhan had come to an end, the order was passed by the writ Court and the applicant has not informed the writ Court that the term of Pradhan had come to an end. On 14.3.2022, the writ Court had directed for concluding the pending inquiry within a period of three months.
8. This Court finds that there is no provision under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1947") to initiate inquiry against an ex-Pradhan. The only provision is Section 27 in Act of 1947, which is 'surcharge' proceedings which can be initiated against the ex Pradhan as the proviso saves the said proceedings where the quantification of the amount has been made pursuant to Rule 256 of U.P.Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947.
9. In the present case neither any inquiry was made nor any quantification of amount was done against the ex Pradhan and the inquiry is being sought afresh against the Pradhan, whose term has come to an end.
10. This Court finds that no case for contempt is made out as exercising power under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act this Court cannot do any roving and fishing enquiry as held by 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. 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."
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no case for contempt is made out. The contempt application stands dismissed.
12. However, it is open to the applicant to pursue his remedy before the appropriate From, if so advised.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022
Kushal
