Delhi High Court
Seema Sharma vs S.S.Agrawal & Ors. on 5 May, 2009
Author: Manmohan
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT. CAS(C) No.378/2008
% Date of Decision : 05th May, 2009
SEEMA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate
versus
S.S.AGRAWAL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for
Respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for
Respondents No. 3 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral)
1. Present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12
of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging wilful disobedience by
respondents of judgment dated March 20, 2008 passed in W.P.(C)
No.8923/2007 whereby respondents were directed in accordance with
Clause 9(d) of Ordinance X to hold an on the spot examination of
petitioner for Masters of Pharmacy (Quality Assurance) first year
course.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Punjeet Taneja has contended
that despite aforesaid categorical direction of this Court, respondents did
not hold an on the spot examination and the petitioner ultimately had to
appear in the regular annual examination held in July-August, 2008 along
with other regular students. Mr. Puneet Taneja, learned counsel for
petitioner stated that in the process, petitioner lost one academic year.
3. University of Delhi, who had to implement and execute the
aforesaid direction of this Court, has filed a detailed affidavit in which it
has averred as under:
"4. It is stated that the judgment of this Hon‟ble Court
dated 20.3.2008 was received by the University authorities
on 10.4.2008. After examining the same and taking
necessary approval etc. for its implementation, the
University authorities vide communication dated 23.4.2008,
requested the Head, Department of Pharmacy to convene
Committee of courses and studies meeting for finalization
and appointment of examiners for conducting examination
of Master of Pharmacy Ist year Course for the petitioner as
a special case. It is submitted that the Master of Pharmacy
Ist year course examination comprises of both theory and
practical papers. While evaluation of theory papers is done
by the concerned paper setters, the practical examination is
conducted by a board of examiners half the members of
which are external examinees from other Universities.
5. It is submitted that the Head, Department of
Pharmacy vide communication dated 5.5.2008,
recommended names of the Examiners suitable for setting
up of question paper for different subjects of Master of
Pharmacy Ist year course. It is stated that the university
authorities immediately issued necessary communications
to each of the Examiners. Since there was a delay in
submission of question papers, reminders etc. were also
sent by the University authorities to each of the Examiners
telegraphically beside telephone calls as most of them are
from outside Delhi. The details of the written/telephonic
reminders issued by the University authorities to each
External Examiners are stated as under:
Paper Subject Reminders
for
question
paper sent
on
I Modern 15th & 30th
Pharma May & 09th
Analytical July, 2008
Tech. & Stats.
II Quality 15th May,
Assurance-I 2008
(Quality
Management)
III Quality 15th, 30th
Assurance-II May, & 09th
(Product July, 2008
Development)
IV Quality 15th & 30th
Assurance-III May, 2008
Packaging
V Quality 15th, 30th
Assurance-IV May, 2008
(Biological
Evaluation)
6. The Head, Department of Pharmacy was duly
informed with request to use his good offices to get the
question papers urgently. It is submitted that since the
External Examiners failed to submit the question papers
within a reasonable time and that the annual examinations
of the Ist year Master of Pharmacy course were already
scheduled to be held in July/August, 2008, taking into
account the totality of circumstances, it was resolved by the
University authorities that it would be appropriate and in
the interest of the petitioner that she appears in the Master
of Pharmacy Ist year course examination along with other
regular students and the annual examination for M.
Pharma, Ist year was held on 04th August 2008."
4. It is well settled that a person can be punished under Contempt of
Courts Act only if he or she wilfully disobeys any judgment, decree,
direction, order or writ or wilfully breaches an undertaking given to a
Court. Thus, to punish an individual under Contempt of Courts Act not
only there has to be a disobedience of judgment/order or breach of an
undertaking but the same has also to be wilful. The expression „wilful‟
has been defined in Black‟s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition as, "proceeding
from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate.
Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional;
purposeful; not accidental or involuntary." Import of the word „wilful‟
was considered by Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors.
v. Md. Illiyas reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 275
wherein it was held, "An act is said to be "wilful" if it is intentional,
conscious and deliberate."
5. From the facts stated in counter affidavit, it is apparent that
officials of University of Delhi had tried their best to comply with
directions of this Court but it was only on account of failure of external
examiners to prepare and submit a question paper within reasonable
time that an on the spot examination of petitioner for the aforesaid
course could not be conducted.
6. In the present case, I find that though there has been
disobedience/breach of judgment dated 20th March, 2008, but the same
is not wilful or deliberate. From the facts and circumstances of the case,
it is apparent that there were practical difficulties beyond the control of
respondents and accordingly an on the spot examination of petitioner for
the aforesaid course could not be conducted.
7. Consequently, I hold respondents not guilty of having committed
contempt of this Court‟s judgment dated 20th March, 2008, but in
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct respondent No.3 to
make payment of costs of present petition to petitioner which are
assessed at Rs.5,000/-. I further direct respondent No.3 to immediately
put in place a procedure so that in future an on the spot examination can
be conducted at a short notice. The cost of Rs.25,000/- lying deposited in
this Court shall be released to petitioner upon petitioner being identified
by her counsel. With aforesaid observations, present petition is disposed
of.
MANMOHAN,J
MAY 05, 2009
js
