M/S Sarvhakti Cables And ... vs Ritu Maheshwari, C.E.O. Noida
2023 Latest Caselaw 11278 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1198 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- M/S Sarvhakti Cables And Conductors
 
Opposite Party :- Ritu Maheshwari, C.E.O. Noida
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kaushalendra Nath Singh,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that on 17.11.2022, the writ Court while disposing of writ petition had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.50 lacs with opposite party and also to file fresh representation for revisiting the matter.

Pursuant to order of writ Court, Rs.50 lacs was paid by the applicant but seal of the factory premises still has not been removed by the authorities.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party states that representation of the applicant was decided on 20.03.2023 which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to affidavit of compliance.

As the order of writ Court was only to the extent to decide representation which the authorities have done on 20.03.2023, the contempt application is rendered infructuous.

In view of decision of Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101, this Court cannot do roving and fishing enquiry as the only direction of writ Court was to decide the representation which the authorities have done. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereasunder:-

"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" 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 wilfulness 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 vigour 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 contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.4.2023

V.S.Singh