Delhi High Court
Jawed Ahmed vs Union Of India And Ors. on 3 August, 2016
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Dated: 3rd August, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 2577/2016
JAWED AHMED ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM No. 10954/2016(Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2577/2016
3. OA filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Central
Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 28.10.2015. As the
respondents had failed to comply with the directions contained therein,
the petitioner was forced to file a Contempt Petition No.595/2014. In
the contempt proceedings, the respondents had brought to the notice of
the Tribunal that a sum of Rs.1,53,137/- had been paid to the petitioner
and thus, the order of the Tribunal stood complied with. The Tribunal
was satisfied with the submissions made by the respondents and thus,
the contempt proceedings were closed. The operative portion of the
order reads as under:
"4. In our view, the respondents have complied with the
order passed by this Tribunal substantially and there is no
wilful disobedience of the aforementioned order. If the
applicant has any grievance regarding the rate of
conversion between dollar and rupee, he may work out his
right in appropriate proceedings, if so advised.
5. Accordingly, the CP is closed. Notice issued to the
respondent stands discharged. No costs."
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal by which the contempt
petition was dismissed, has led to the filing of the present petition.
5. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a
preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ
petition. Mr. Chaturvedi submits that an appeal against the
dismissal of the contempt petition would not lie to this Court. He
has relied upon in the case of D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, reported
at (1988) 3 SCC 26. Paras 10 to 13 read as under:
"10. There can be no doubt that whenever a court, tribunal
or authority is vested with a jurisdiction to decide a matter,
such jurisdiction can be exercised in deciding the matter in
favour or against a person. For example, a civil court is
conferred with the jurisdiction to decide a suit; the civil court
will have undoubtedly the jurisdiction to decree the suit or
dismiss the same. But when a court is conferred with the
power or jurisdiction to act in a particular manner, the
exercise of jurisdiction or the power will involve the acting
in that particular manner and in no other. Article 215 confers
jurisdiction or power on the High Court to punish for
contempt. The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction only
by punishing for contempt. It is true that in considering a
question whether the alleged contemnor is guilty of contempt
or not, the court hears the parties and considers the materials
produced before it and, if necessary, examines witnesses and,
thereafter, passes an order either acquitting or punishing him
for contempt. When the High Court acquits the contemnor,
the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction for
contempt, for such exercise will mean that the High Court
should act in a particular manner, that is to way, by imposing
punishment for contempt. So long as no punishment is
imposed b the High Court, the High Court cannot be said to
be exercising its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt
under Article 215 of the Constitution.
11. It does not, however, mean that when the High Court
erroneously acquits a contemnor guilty of criminal contempt,
the petitioner who is interested in maintaining the dignity of
the court will be without any remedy. Even though no
appeal is maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Act, the
petitioner in such a case can move this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution. Therefore, the contention, as
advanced on behalf of the appellant, that there would be no
remedy against the erroneous or perverse decision of the
High Court in not exercising its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, is not correct. But, in such a case there would be
no right of appeal under Section 19(1), as there is no exercise
of jurisdiction or power by the High Court to punish for
contempt. The view which we take finds support from a
decision of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice
Gatikrushna Mishra.
12. Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the
question whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to
be considered on an interpretation of the provision of the
statute and not on the ground of propriety or any other
consideration. In this connection, it may be noticed that
there was no right of appeal under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1952. It is for the first time that under Section 19(1) of
the Act, a right of appeal has been provided for. A contempt
is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor.
Any person who moves the machinery of the court for
contempt only brings to the notice of the court certain facts
constituting contempt of court. After furnishing such
information he may still assist the court, but it must always
be borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only
two parties, namely, the court and the contemnor. It may be
one o the reasons which weighed with the legislature in not
conferring any right of appeal on the petitioner for contempt.
The aggrieved party under Section 19(1) can only be the
contemnor who has been punished for contempt of court.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, there is substance in the
preliminary objection raised as to the maintainability of the
appeal. In our view the appeal is incompetent and is,
accordingly, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as
to costs."
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the
present petition to enable him to file a substantive petition.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
AUGUST 03, 2016
b/pst
