Subhash Chand Jain vs Sanjay Agarwal Principal Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12743 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3235 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Subhash Chand Jain
 
Opposite Party :- Sanjay Agarwal Principal Secy. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- K.R. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

The writ Court while allowing the Writ-A No. 59662 of 2010 on 19.11.2016 had granted benefit to the applicant pursuant to which the State authorities had paid certain amount to the applicant.

Through this contempt application, the applicant has tried to raise the grievance that the benefit which has been accorded to the applicant is not as per the revised pay-scale. The said issue was not before the writ Court nor it has been adjudicated.

Contempt Court cannot venture into the merits of the case and decide the claims of the applicant on merits. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act is a Court of execution and not a Court of adjudication.

Recently, the 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 has held as under:-

"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 Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot delve into the disputed question of fact and the argument raised at Bar by the applicant's counsel cannot be appreciated and dealt with under contempt jurisdiction while exercising power under Section 12 of the Act. It is the writ Court who will decide the matter on merits as held by Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora (supra).

As the order of writ Court has been complied with by the authorities, contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.4.2023

Shekhar