Allahabad High Court
Kishori Lal Mahavidyalaya vs Shri Dinesh Kumar ... on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:115456
Court No. - 7
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5346 of 2022
Applicant :- Kishori Lal Mahavidyalaya
Opposite Party :- Shri Dinesh Kumar Chaturvedi,Regional Director And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bharat Pratap Singh,Bharat Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, Senior Advocate for the applicant and Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. This contempt applicant under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed for punishing the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for flouting and not complying the order dated 28.09.2021 passed in Writ-C No.17382 of 2021.
3. Learned Senior Counsel contented that direction of the writ Court was to the extent that once No Objection Certificate is granted by the University, NCTE was to take final call in regard to recognition of the applicant-Institution in accordance with law before the new session starts.
4. According to him, the matter relating to recognition was for the year 2015 onward but NCTE has rejected the application moved by the institution on 22.03.2023 relying upon some decision of Delhi High Court. He further contended that recognition for the earlier period should have been granted by NCTE.
5. Per contra, Sri Singh, learned counsel for opposite party submitted that Regional Director has proceeded with the application on 22.03.2023 and had taken a decision that the application be returned to the applicant institution as recognition for B.Ed. Course could not be granted. The application has been returned with the processing fee.
6. Replying the argument made by counsel for opposite party, Sri Gupta submitted that till date the processing fee has not been returned back.
7. I have heard the respective counsel of the parties and perused the material on record.
8. From perusal of the order of writ Court it is clear that once No Objection Certificate was given by the University concerned, NCTE was to proceed and process the application for grant of recognition for B.Ed. before the new session starts. As the authorities have decided the application of the applicant-institution on 22nd March, 2023, this Court finds that no fresh order is required by this Court as the order of this Court stood complied with.
9. Recently the Apex Court 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 has held that while exercising contempt jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court should not delve with the disputed questions of fact and roving enquiry could not be done. 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."
10. In view of the said fact, as the order of writ Court was to decide the recognition application moved by applicant-institution, which the authority has done, the contempt application stands dismissed.
11. However, it is open to the applicant-institution to challenge the order passed by opposite party before appropriate Forum, if so advised.
12. It is the further made clear that the processing fee, if not paid by opposite party, be refunded to the applicant within a period of ten days from today. Further, if the said amount is not paid, it shall also carry interest @ 8% p.a. to be paid by opposite party till the date actual payment is made.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
Kushal
