Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Kumar Verma General ... vs Smt. Chunni Devi And Others on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 221 of 2022
Appellant :- Shailendra Kumar Verma General Manager Jalkal Lucknow (In Capl 541 Of 2021)
Respondent :- Smt. Chunni Devi And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Dr. Pooja Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Apoorva Tewari
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
This intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court seeks to challenge the order dated 25.04.2022, passed by the Contempt Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No.-541 of 2021, whereby charge has been framed against the appellant.
As per provision contained in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, the order passed by the learned Contempt Judge while exercising contempt jurisdiction is not amenable to the Special Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. However, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a judgment in the case of S.M.A. Abdi and another Vs. Private Secretaries Brotherhood, Office of the U.P. State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow, reported in 2010 SCC OnLine All 939 and has submitted that in the said case as well the Special Appeal was entertained which was filed against the order passed in contempt jurisdiction.
The law in respect of amenability of the order passed by the learned Contempt Judge in intra-court appeal is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others, reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 399. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment is quoted here under :
"11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus:
I. An appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.
II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.
III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.
IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases).
The first point is answered accordingly".
Hon'ble Supreme Court has, thus, summarised the nature of orders for contempt proceedings which are amenable to appeals. Point-V of the said summary provides that if the Court decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties under the contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person can challenge such order in an intra-court appeal or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to submit that the present case falls within the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd (supra) as described in Point-V of the summary contained in Paragraph 11 of the said judgment.
When we examine the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of what has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd(supra), we do not find that the Contempt Judge while passing the order under appeal herein, has either touched upon the merit of the dispute between the parties or has issued any direction outside the contempt jurisdiction. What the learned Contempt Judge has observed in the order dated 25.04.2022 is that the writ court had directed that the assessment of the amount of compensation shall be calculated either in terms of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or in terms of what was decided by the Committee in its meeting held on 23.06.2016. Learned Contempt Judge has further observed that only computation of the compensation has been made, however, no disbursement of the same has been made.
Learned Contempt Judge has proceeded to frame charge only considering that the order of writ court has not been complied with and no efforts were made for any effective compliance of the order passed in writ court.
So far as the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.M.A. Abdi and another(supra) is concerned, what we notice is that the Division Bench has recorded a finding that "on closure scrutiny of the order, we find that the learned Single Judge wanted to find out the import by interpretation of the order and give effect of the same in his own way. However, sitting in the contempt jurisdiction, interpretation of the original order cannot be held to be justiciable nor advisable."
Thus, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case of S.M.A. Abdi and another(supra).
In our considered opinion, the order dated 25.04.2022 neither issues any direction outside the contempt jurisdiction nor does it touch the merit of the dispute between the parties. The order only frames charge against the appellant and hence, in our considered opinion, applying the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd(supra), this Special Appeal would not be maintainable.
Accordingly, the Special Appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2022
Sanjay
