Allahabad High Court
Seema Yadav vs Kuldeep Singh, Controller ... on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1006 of 2022
Applicant :- Seema Yadav
Opposite Party :- Kuldeep Singh, Controller Examination
Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Singh,Lalta Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vivek Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Lalta Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the writ Court on 22.07.2021 while disposing off the Writ-C No. 5890 of 2021 had required the opposite party to look into the grievance of the applicant and decide the representation on merits.
Pursuant to the order of writ Court, the opposite party on 02.08.2021 had passed the order rejecting the claim of the applicant, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No. 1 to the affidavit of compliance. Thereafter, contempt proceedings were drawn by the applicant and this Court on 02.11.2021 had required the opposite party to take a final call in the matter within the time frame prescribed in the said order. The opposite party pursuant to the directions of contempt Court on 16.11.2021 again proceeded and decided the matter against the applicant, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No. 2 to the affidavit of compliance.
Today, when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the claim of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that he has not cleared the earlier examination, as such, result of subsequent examination cannot be declared. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the mark-sheet which has been appended on page 23 of the paper book for the examination of BA-I held for session 2016-17.
I have heard the respective counsel and perused the material on record.
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."
The order of writ Court dated 22.07.2021 was specific to the extent that the opposite party was required to decide the claim of the applicant on merits within a period of four weeks. The authorities on 02.08.2021, within the time frame fixed by the writ Court, decided the claim of the applicant. Thereafter, again pursuant to the directions of the contempt Court, the opposite party had taken decision on 16.11.2021.
This Court finds that under the contempt jurisdiction the decision taken by the opposite party, upon the directions of writ Court, cannot be assessed on merits as the order of writ Court was only to the extent to decide the claim of the applicant. Whether the opposite party has rightly or wrongly decided the claim of the applicant, cannot be adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act.
Contempt application is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed, leaving it open to the applicant to challenge the order passed by the opposite party, if so advised, before the appropriate legal forum.
Contempt notice stands discharged.
File consign to record.
Order Date :- 27.7.2022
Shekhar
