Kalika Prasad vs Sri Avnish Kumar ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4049 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2956 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Kalika Prasad
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Avnish Kumar Awasthi,Additional Home Secretaryand 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bramh Narayan Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri B.N. Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.

The applicant had approached this Court through Writ-A No. 18807 of 2021 ventilating his grievance. The writ Court on 16.12.2021 directed respondent no. 2 i.e Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters, Lucknow to decide the representation of the applicant in case it was filed within three months by reasoned and speaking order. The authorities complying the order of writ Court on 23.01.2022 decided the claim of the applicant and held that simple interest was payable to the applicant and as far as the other payment is concerned, the same shall be reimbursed to the applicant once the amount is received.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite the order passed by Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters, Lucknow, the State authorities are not releasing the amount and they are in contempt of the order passed on 16.12.2021 by the writ Court. He has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Rohit Gupta vs. The Principal, S.N. Medical College, (1995) 1 UPLBEC 365. Relevant para 5 is extracted hereasunder:-

"5. We are distressed to note from annexure-7 to the writ petition that the Principal has taken a stand that he will take action in respect of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court only when he receives some communication from the State Government. This action of the Principal, in our opinion, amounts to contempt of court. No authority can say that it will not comply with the judgment of this court unless it has received a communication from the State Government. The judgments of this court are binding on all authorities automatically and it is not that they become finding only when approved by the State Govt. It is surprising that the Principal of a Medical College has taken a wholly illegal and untenable stand in an-nexure-7 to the writ petition. We were inclined to issue contempt notice but we refrained ourselves from doing so as we feel that he has issued the letter which is annexure-7 in ignorance of the legal position but we will grant not further indulgence to him in future. The Principal of S. N. Medical College, Agra and all other authorities in the State must know that orders of this court are binding on them automatically and must be faithfully and punctually complied with, and such authorities cannot take a stand that they will comply with the judgment of this court only when they receive some communication from the State Govt. In future this court will not tolerate this kind of attitude from any authority and all authorities are cautioned against taking up such attitude in respect of the orders or judgments of this Court."

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material on record.

The order of writ Court dated 16.12.2021 was specific to the extent that the Court had permitted the applicant to make a fresh representation ventilating his grievance before the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters, Lucknow which was to be decided by the authority within three months. Relevant part of the order dated 16.12.2021 is extracted hereasunder:-

"With the consent of counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before respondent no. 2/ The Finance Controller U.P. Police Headquarters, Lucknow along-with certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2, within the time indicated hereinabove, he shall consider and decide the same by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner before him."

The direction of the writ Court was specific to the extent that the grievance of the applicant was to be decided by the authority. The Finance Controller complying the order of writ Court decided the claim of the applicant within the stipulated time on 23.01.2022. According to the Court, the order of writ Court stood complied with once the Finance Controller decided the representation of the applicant on 23.01.2022.

The Apex Court in case of Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj and others 2014 (16) SCC 204 while defining 'wilful disobedience' held as under:-

"11. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities.

12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful'. The word 'wilful' introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. 'Wilful' means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely". Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct"

In a recent judgment, 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 no roving and fishing enquiry can be done by the contempt Court and the contempt Court has to see that the order passed by writ Court is complied with and cannot substitute its own finding in the order of the writ Court. The Court further held that the contempt Court is a Court of execution and not a Court of adjudication.

This Court in case of Prem Shankar vs. Rajeev Pandey Special Land Acquisition, Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5344 of 2021, decided on 25.05.2022 held as under:-

"29. The contempt Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 10 read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is only to see that the order of the writ Court is complied with. It acts like an Executing Court and cannot go behind the order passed, which is to be complied with by the authorities. It is not a Court of adjudication, rather it is an Executing Court.

30. In case, the Contempt Court starts lifting the wheel and adjudicates upon a matter, the entire purpose and the scheme envisaged under the Act, 1971 would fail. The Contempt Court has been given limited jurisdiction, to the extent that in case, a contemnor violates and does not comply the order of the adjudicating Court and there is a wilful disobedience on his part, he is liable to be punished for civil contempt.

31. The Executing Court cannot, in the garb of getting an order of adjudicating Court complied with, enter into an area which is prohibited and adjudicate and record its own finding.

32. In the present case, the writ Court did not decide the lis between the parties, rather it remitted the matter to the competent authority for adjudication. Interference by the Contempt Court into the action of the competent authority would amount to adjudicating the claim, which is not in the domain of the Contempt Court.

33. The Contempt Court has its limitation, it cannot enter the arena which is forbided. The adjudication of a claim cannot be done by the Executing Court, as the role assigned is to the adjudicating authority/Court."

Having considered the material on record, this Court finds that no case of contempt is made out as the opposite party had complied the order of writ Court dated 16.12.2021 by deciding the representation on 23.01.2022.

The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that State authorities were withholding and they were bound to release the amount does not attract contempt proceedings as there was no direction for them and the direction was only to the extent that Finance Controller was to decide the representation within three months which he did.

The reliance placed upon decision in case of Dr. Rohit Gupta (supra) is not applicable in the present case, and the Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora (supra) and Ram Kishan (supra) had cleared the air and categorically held that the contempt Court cannot do roving and fishing enquiry as far as the compliance of the order of writ Court is concerned.

This Court feels that the Court of contempt is only a Court for getting the order of writ Court executed and cannot interfere with the finding recorded by the writ Court, nor can adjudicate upon the matter which is not in the domain of the executing Court and is forbidden. The scope of Section 12 is only to the extent that the Court has to see whether there is a wilful disobedience of the order of the Court wherein an action can be taken against the contemnor for punishing him.

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court, 1971 defines "civil contempt', which is extracted hereasunder:-

"(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;"

From the reading of the aforesaid section, it is clear that there must be an intent by the opposite party to willfully disobey the order of a Court.

In the present case, there is no wilful disobedience of the order of the writ Court as the Finance Controller himself within the time stipulated by the Court had decided the representation on 23.01.2022.

The contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.5.2022

V.S.Singh