Allahabad High Court
Shivangi Rai vs Sri Neeraj Gupta And Another on 28 May, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96938
Court No. - 51
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1358 of 2024
Applicant :- Shivangi Rai
Opposite Party :- Sri Neeraj Gupta And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Tanya Makker
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Gupta,Rakesh Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The writ Court on 09.11.2023 while disposing of Writ-C No. 39221 of 2023 passed the following order:-
"Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent no.3 to make the pariwar register of the petitioner and family members and a further prayer to direct the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 14.07.2023 moved petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of petitioner's husband, she moved an application before the respondent no.3 requesting to include her name in the family register, which is pending. Therefore, a direction may be issued to respondent no.3 to decide the application of the applicant within stipulated period.
Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner is A.D.O., Panchayat, therefore, in case the petitioner moves an application before the A.D.O., Panchayat, the same will be decided in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid, no useful purpose will be served to keep this writ petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file afresh representation/application before the competent authority, i.e. A.D.O. Panchayat, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order and, if any such application is filed, the competent authority shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties expeditiously, in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said application.
It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case of the petitioner and the authority concerned shall apply its own mind strictly in accordance with law."
From perusal of the order, it is clear that the Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case had directed that in case the petitioner/applicant files a fresh representation before the competent authority, it was to be decided, strictly in accordance with law.
A compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party wherein it has been stated in para no. 13 that order of writ Court has been complied with and representation has been decided on 10.04.2024. Copy of which has been appended as annexure-2 to compliance affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the said representation has not been decided correctly by the authorities and the facts stated in the said order are factually wrong. She further contends that opposite party has colluded with certain persons of the village and had wrongly passed the order.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order passed by opposite party, this Court finds that no roving inquiry can be done by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act as held by 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 said 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."
In view of said fact, as the order of writ Court was only to the extent to decide the representation in case it was filed before the competent authority which the competent authority has done, the contempt application is rendered infructuous and the same stands dismissed.
Contempt notice stands discharged.
However, leaving it open to the applicant to assail the order passed by opposite party before the appropriate forum, if so advised, and if there is any statutory remedy of filing an appeal, the applicant may prefer that.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
V.S.Singh
