Between:­ vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3918 HP

                                 REPORTABLE/NON­REPORTABLE
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                 ON THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021




                                                            .

                                BEFORE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





               CIVIL ORIGINAL PETITION CONTEMPT
                        NO.274/2019

    BETWEEN:­

                      r         to
    SANJEEV KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS,
    S/O LATE SHRI KUSHI RAM,
    R/O VPO KHARAN, SUB­TEHSIL NANKHARI,
    DISTRICT SHIMLA (HP)

                                      ....PETITIONER
    (BY SH. SHRAWAN DOGRA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR.
    BHARAT THAKUR, ADVOCATE)



    AND

    1.    SECRETARY (TRANSPORT)




          TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,





          SHIMLA­1.
    2.    DIRECTOR TRANSPORT,
          HIMACHAL PRADESH (EX­OFFICIO CHAIRMAN,





          REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY),
          PARIVAHAN BHAWAN,SHIMLA­4.

                                                    ...RESPONDENTS

    (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, A.G. WITH SH. VINOD THAKUR,
    ADDL. A.G., AND SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY. AG.)

               This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court

    passed the following:




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:00 :::CIS
                                           2




                                                                    .
                                   ORDER

Heard. The instant petition is clearly mis­directed and

mis­conceived; and as such is not maintainable, more

particularly, when the petitioner has not sought any leave nor

has the Court granted any liberty to third parties, who are not

party to the order in question, to initiate action for contempt of

the Court.

2 In taking this view, I am supported by judgment of the

learned Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, in

Shamshuddin versus Haris M.Y. 2016 SCC OnLine KAR 6468 :

ILR 2017 Kar 663, wherein it was held as under:­

"5. It is a settled position of law that the power conferred

on a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to punish for Contempt of Court must be exercised in

accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of the Act, petition to initiate action for civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act can be presented only by a party aggrieved, except where the Court which passed the order has given liberty to third parties, who are not parties to the order, to initiate action for Contempt of Court. We may state that Section 14 of the Act relates to procedure

.

where contempt is in the fact of the Supreme Court or a

High Court and Section 15 of the Act relates to procedure in the case of a criminal contempt; they are exceptions to the

Rule of locus standi relating to civil contempt stated above.

6. The complainant is not a party to the order in his personal capacity. As the complainant has presented this

petition is his personal capacity and in his personal name and not as administrator of the Masjid, he cannot be said to a party aggrieved. It is relevant to state that, in the

order, no liberty is given to any third party to initiate action

for contempt of Court. Hence, the petition as brought is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed."

3 In view of the aforesaid observations, the instant

petition is closed and the notices are ordered to be discharged.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

13.8.2021 (pankaj)