Allahabad High Court
M/S. S.G. Impressions-58 vs Ruchin Mehra on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:115870
Court No. - 7
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4128 of 2023
Applicant :- M/S. S.G. Impressions-58
Opposite Party :- Ruchin Mehra
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitdendra Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Jitdendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
This contempt application has been filed under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the opposite party, Ruchin Mehra for flouting the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Writ-C No. 6281 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after the order dated 20.02.2020 was passed by writ Court, the opposite party who was respondent no. 6 in the writ petition had pressurised respondent no. 5, Electricity Ombudsman for passing order against applicant. Thereafter, opposite party had filed a contempt application before this Court being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5181 of 2022 which was dismissed on 05.09.2022.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material on record.
The writ Court on 20.02.2020 in Writ-C No. 6281 of 2020 passed the following order:-
"Dr. S.C Yadav appears on behalf of respondents - 3 and 4. He may file counter affidavit within a month.
The petitioners assure the Court that till the next date of hearing, which we fix 26.3.2020, he will continue to charge and pay the electricity bill according to Tariff Order dated 3.9.2019 issued by UP Electricity Regulatory Commission.
List on 26.3.2020."
From perusal of the order, it is clear that the petitioner himself had assured the Court that till next date of hearing which was fixed for 26.03.2020, he will continue to charge and pay electricity bill according to Tariff Order dated 03.09.2019 issued by U.P. Electricity Commission.
It is thus clear that it was the petitioner who had given undertaking before the Court. From perusal of the parties, it is clear that opposite party is also one of the resident of M/s. S.G. Impressions-58, the housing society. It transpires that litigation has been instituted between the parties so as to avoid payment of certain electricity bills.
From perusal of material on record, it is clear that no case for contempt is made out, and the Court cannot do any roving enquiry in the matter in view of judgment of Hon'ble 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. The relevant para 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."
When the Court enquired from counsel for the applicant as to how the contempt is made out, he submitted that though undertaking was there of the petitioner but opposite party had connived with respondent no. 5 i.e. Electricity Ombudsman and as such contempt is made out.
This Court further asked the counsel appearing for the applicant to go through section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act which defines civil contempt. He replied that he was well aware of the said provision.
This Court finds that counsel though well aware of the fact that no contempt lies had still filed the contempt application deliberately.
In view of above, contempt application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
V.S.Singh
