Rajesh Kumar Nishad vs Mr Rajnish Dubey, Principal Sec ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4182 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3576 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Nishad
 
Opposite Party :- Mr Rajnish Dubey, Principal Secretary, Urban Planning and Development, Government of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. This contempt proceeding under Section 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") has been launched for punishing the opposite party for committing deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated 11.02.2019 passed in Writ-C No.4347 of 2019 (Rajesh Kumar Nishad vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that while disposing of the writ petition, the writ Court had required the authorities to consider the claim of the applicant. The authorities had released the amount of Rs.12,52,180/- but the interest has not been paid by the State authority.

3. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of Apex Court in case of Surya Constructions vs. State of U.P. and others (2019) 16 SCC 794, para 3 thereof is extracted hereas under :

"It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the Appellant. Despite this, when the Appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25126/2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the Appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 'ABL International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.' 2004 (3) SCC 553.

4. Reliance has also been placed upon Division Bench decisions of this Court in case of Pratiksha Constructions vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition No.41238 of 2013) decided on 11th February, 2015 and Chitra Gupta Trading vs. U.P. Public Works Department 2010 (5) ADJ 299.

5. Sri Triloki Singh, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order of writ Court was only to the extent to decide the claim of the applicant which the authorities have done and earlier an amount of Rs.3,99,500/- was sanctioned and disbursed and the remaining amount of Rs.8,52,680/- was handed over to the applicant through cheque No.013832 on 25.05.2022.

6. The said fact is not disputed by counsel for the applicant.

7. I have heard Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Triloki Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party and perused the material on record.

8. The only insistence of applicant's counsel is to the extent of payment of interest on the amount paid by the authorities.

9. Before adverting to decide the issue in hand, a cursory glance of order of writ Court is necessary, relevant portion of which is extracted hereas under :-

"That being the case, we cannot issue such a direction.

The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that if the bill amount is not disputed, the authorities may consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law."

10. From perusal of the order, quoted above, it is clear that the writ Court had only disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the authorities may consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. There was no direction for payment of interest by the authorities.

11. Section 2(b) of Act, 1971 defines ''civil contempt', which is extracted hereasunder:-

"2. (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;"

12. From the reading of definition of word ''civil contempt' it is clear that where there is wilful disobedience of an order of the Court, the authority is liable to be punished for contempt under Section 10/12 of the Act, 1971.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj and others 2014 (16) SCC 204, considered the word ''wilful disobedience' and the Apex Court held that wilful disobedience will only be under certain circumstances. The relevant paras 11 and 12 of the judgment are extracted hereasunder:-

"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"

14. In the recent judgment in the case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 the Apex Court had a occasion to consider ''wilful disobedience' and held as 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."

15. From the reading of provisions of Section 2(b) along with judgment of Apex Court rendered in case of Ram Kishan (supra), and Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others (supra), it is evident that only when there is wilful disobedience on the part of authority, the jurisdiction under Act, 1971 can be invoked.

16. The Apex Court further in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others (supra) held that no roving inquiry can be done in contempt proceedings. As the order of writ Court is specific to the extent that the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, which has been considered and the amount has been released in favour of the applicant, no case for contempt/wilful disobedience is made out against the officer/official of the State authority.

17. This Court recently in Contempt Application (Civil) No. - 5344 of 2021 (Prem Shankar vs. Rajeev Pandey Special Land Acquisition Officer/City Magistrate, Bareilly And Another) decided on 25.05.2022 held as under :

"28. It is well settled that Court dealing with application for Contempt of Courts cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness, or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction, as it would amount to be exercising review jurisdiction with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. It is impermissible. The Apex Court had occasion to hold such view in case of Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, AIR 2004 SC 4277.

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 veil 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.

34. Once, the authorities had decided the claim of the applicant, order of the writ Court stood complied with and in case of applicant being dissatisfied, has an efficacious remedy to approach the Court or any forum provided under law, and the same cannot be decided under the contempt jurisdiction. In Dr. U.N. Bora (Supra), the Apex Court had clearly held that no roving enquiry can be conducted by a Contempt Court."

18. Reliance placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of Surya Constructions (supra) and Division Bench judgments in Pratiksha Constructions (supra) and Chitra Gupta Trading (supra) are not applicable in the present case as those judgments were rendered by the Court in writ jurisdiction. The scope of contempt jurisdiction is limited to the extent that the order of writ Court has to be complied with by the authority in entirety.

19. In the present case, the order of writ Court was to the extent to decide the claim by the authorities. Neither there was any direction for payment of interest nor the amount was quantified by the writ Court. Thus, the argument raised at the bar that the applicant is also liable for interest and the authorities are in contempt does not hold ground and hence rejected.

20. The present contempt proceedings has rendered infructuous as the order of writ Court has already been complied with by the authorities and the same is accordingly dismissed.

21. Contempt notice stands discharged.

22. File consigned to record.

Order Date :- 26.5.2022

Kushal

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)