Allahabad High Court
Smt. Suman vs Sri Krishna Karunesh, Vice ... on 9 September, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2781 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Suman
Opposite Party :- Sri Krishna Karunesh, Vice Chairman
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party.
Applicant had approached the writ Court through Writ-C No. 24881 of 2021. On 10.11.2021 writ Court permitted the applicant to withdraw the writ petition giving liberty to appraoch the authority concerned by filing an application. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is as under;
"After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh application, ventilating her grievance before respondent no.3. He submits that respondent no.3 be directed to decide the said application expeditiously in accordance with law.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to this proposition.
Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any such application by the petitioner, respondent no.3 to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, considering all aspects of the case. "
Pursuant to the said order, the applicant had approached the authority concerned who according to the applicant, had initially not complied the order of writ Court to the extent that application was not decided. According to learned counsel for the applicant when the contempt notices were issued the applicant was called on 01.09.2022 and the Zonal Officer has handed over a copy of the order, which has been filed alongwith the affidavit of compliance.
He further contended that the same order has been passed by the opposite party which was brought on record.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party, states that the writ Court had not entertained the writ petition of the applicant and had only relegated her, after dismissing the writ petition, to the authority by moving an application which was to be considered. According to him the application has been considered by the opposite party and a detailed order has been passed on 01.09.2022, which has been appended as annexure No. 1 to the affidavit of compliance.
After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds that the writ Court had not entertained the writ petition filed by the applicant and had only granted liberty for approaching the opposite party for raising her grievance which was to be decided in accordance with law. The authority concerned on 01.09.2022 has passed an order.
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 the while dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry. 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."
Considering the facts of the case and perusing the order of Division Bench dated 10.11.2021 and a recent dictum of Apex Court given in case of Dr. U.N. Bora (Supra), I am of the view that no case for contempt is made out.
Contempt application is dismissed, accordingly.
Contempt notice stands discharged.
Order Date :- 9.9.2022
Shekhar
