Bombay High Court
All India Adiwasi Employees ... vs Shaktikanta Das, Governor Of Rbi, ... on 1 July, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, G. A. Sanap
4-CP-361-19 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.361 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NOS.1562 OF 2004 (D) AND 258 OF 2014 (D)
All India Adiwasi Employees Federation,
Gondwana Vikas Mandal, Tukdoji Nagar,
Manewada Road, Nagpur
Thr. its President
Madhukar Warluji Uikey ... Petitioner
-vs-
Shaktikanta Das, Governor of RBI,
Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Fort, Mumbai and ors. ... Respondents
Ms Nidhi Dayani, Advocate with Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : July 01, 2021
Order : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
The grievance of the petitioner in this contempt petition filed
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is that the respondents who are the
Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and its officers have failed to
comply with the directions issued in Writ Petition Nos.1562/2004 and
258/2014 as well as the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal No.10396/2018. This Court while deciding the aforesaid
writ petitions on 13/04/2018 had issued directions to the respondents
4-CP-361-19 2/5
therein to discontinue and terminate the void recruitment of respondent
Nos.5 to 140 in those writ petitions. Directions were issued to the
employer not to release any payment or dues to the employees in question
who had given up their caste claim and were still continued in service. It
was also directed to recover payments made or dues released to the
employees. This judgment was the subject matter of challenge before
the Honourable Supreme Court and while deciding Civil Appeal
No.10396/2018 the Honourable Supreme Court partially modified the
judgment of the High Court and directed the employees in question to be
placed below the last of the general category candidate as on 28/11/2000.
The recovery as directed was set aside with regard to employees who had
superannuated. This Court was also requested to dispose of all contempt
proceedings initiated against the officers of the Reserve Bank of India for
non-implementation of the judgment dated 13/04/2018.
2. According to the petitioner since there is non-compliance of the
directions issued in the aforesaid proceedings the same amounts to
contempt of this Court warranting action to be taken against the
respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite
the fact that the judgment of this Court dated 13/04/2018 was modified
by the Honourable Supreme Court, in view of the doctrine of merger it
would be permissible for this Court to initiate action against the
4-CP-361-19 3/5
respondents for non-compliance of the directions issued in those
proceedings. Placing reliance on the decision in Kunhayammed and ors.
vs. State of Kerala and anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359 it was submitted that since
leave was granted in the Special Leave Petition preferred by the
employees the doctrine of merger was attracted and hence this Court
should exercise jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India
to punish the respondents.
3. We are not in a position to accept this submission. It is clear from
the record that the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions
dated 13/04/2018 was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court.
In those proceedings leave was granted resulting in the Special Leave
Petition being registered as Civil Appeal No.10396/2018 which was
decided on 11/10/2018. The judgment of the High Court was partially
modified and various directions came to be issued. In the light of the law
laid down in Kunhayammed and ors.(supra) it is clear that the doctrine of
merger stands attracted as leave to appeal was granted and the appellate
jurisdiction of the Honourable Supreme Court stood invoked. The
decision in Civil Appeal No.10396/2018 by the Honourable Supreme
Court would result in superseding the decision of this Court in Writ
Petition Nos.1562/2004 and 258/2014 in view of the doctrine of merger.
The ratio of this decision thus does not further the case of the petitioner
4-CP-361-19 4/5
while urging this Court to take cognizance of the alleged contempt.
4. In Manubhai Pragji Vashi vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 1996
(2) Mh.L.J. 615 a learned Single Judge (R. M. Lodha, J. as His Lordship
then was) held in clear terms that the High Court has no jurisdiction to
invoke the power under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or for that
matter under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for alleged contempt
of the order, judgment or direction of the Honourable Supreme Court.
This decision has been followed by this Court in Contempt Petition
No.164/2018 decided on 12/02/2021 (All India Adiwasi Employees of
Federation and ors. vs. Smt Indrani Banerjee, Regional Director, Reserve
Bank of India, Civil Lines, Nagpur and ors. and ors.). In Vitusah Oberoi
and ors. vs. Court of its own Motion 2017(2) Mh.L.J.(Cri.)SC 129 the
Honourable Supreme Court in clear terms has held that the power to
punish for contempt vested in a Court of Record under Article 215 of the
Constitution does not extend to punishing for contempt of a superior
Court. The power to punish under Article 215 is limited to the contempt
of the High Court or courts sub-ordinate to the High Court. In the light
of the doctrine of merger what remains on record is only the judgment of
the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10396/2018. If
according to the petitioner there is non-compliance of any direction issued
in that judgment the petitioner would have to invoke the appropriate
4-CP-361-19 5/5
jurisdiction before the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. In that view of the matter we are not in a position to entertain the
contempt petition for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner is free to take
appropriate steps as advised if he has any grievance in the matter.
Contempt petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
