C/M Samaj Kalyan Primary ... vs Dr. Amar Singh,Finance ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12751 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1261 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- C/M Samaj Kalyan Primary Pathshala
 
Opposite Party :- Dr. Amar Singh,Finance Controller And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Saran,Suchita Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

An affidavit of compliance has been filed today which is taken on record.

The writ Court while disposing of Writ-A No. 16249 of 2022 on 12.10.2022 had directed the opposite party to decide the representation of the applicant.

Pursuant to order of writ Court, the opposite party on 15.03.2023 had considered and decided the representation of the applicant and passed the order which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to affidavit of compliance.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that order of writ Court dated 12.10.2022 was corrected on 14.11.2022 and the Court had directed that the representation may be decided in the light of recommendation dated 26.03.2022. He contends that that the authorities have not touched any aspect of the recommendation and has not complied the order of writ Court.

This Court finds that sufficient compliance has been done by opposite party and the representation has been decided. This is a Court of execution and not a Court of adjudication.

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 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."

In view of above, as the order of writ Court has been complied with, contempt application stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.4.2023

V.S.Singh