Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ravi Kumar vs Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmed on 1 May, 2024
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Serial No. 18
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case:- RP No. 71/2021
1. Ravi Kumar, age 56 years, .....Appellant(s)
S/o Sh. Bua Ditta
Mistri, Govt. Degree College,
Kathua.
2. Jatinder Nath, age 64 years,
S/o Sh. Kanshi Ram
R/o Plumber, Govt. Degree College,
Kathua.
Through: Mr. K. S. Johal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate.
Vs
1. Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmed,
Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.
2. Prof. Tariq Ahmed Kawoosa,
Director Colleges,
Higher Education Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ramesh Arora, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
(01.05.2024)
01. There was a contempt petition being CPSW No. 353/2013 on
the docket of this Court which came to suffer closure by
virtue of an order dated 16.10.2020.
02. On the date of passing of this order, it was the Covid
restriction time which was not allowing any access to the
litigants to the Court and even their lawyers were attending
the Court through virtual mode and not through physical
mode. Virtual mode connectivity at the relevant point of time
was not efficient in terms of its working since the virtual
mode hearing with this Court was a new phenomenon.
03. The closure of the contempt case came to take place by a
purported reference to the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India was seized of SLP No. 2952/2019 in which the
operation of the judgment dated 08.05.2017 had come to be
stayed and, as such, the counsel then representing the
respondents in the case had impressed upon the Court that
in view of the indulgence of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, the Single Bench judgment admitted of no
implementation and, therefore, contempt needed to be given a
closure. Taking the statement of the counsel for the
respondents as it is, this Court came to close the contempt
petition with a liberty to the petitioners to get the same
revived in case the need arises.
04. The present application came to be filed by the petitioners
seeking revival of the said contempt petition.
05. The very fact that the disposal of the contempt petition had
taken place in absence of the petitioners is itself a fact which
militates against the rule of natural justice and, therefore,
recalling of an order which is passed against the back of a
party, that too the petitioners, without any due notice to the
said party does not amount to review on merits but a review
on procedural side which is inherently available to a Court,
therefore, this Court allows this application and revives the
contempt petition being CPSW No. 353/2013 so as to deal
with it on merits as to whether it survives for adjudication or
not in the light of the mentioned fact that Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India is seized of the matter with respect to the
judgment in reference.
06. Mr. Ramesh Arora, learned Sr. AAG has referred to a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
"Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. Vs Sachidanand
Dass" reported in 1995 SCC 465 to impress the point that in
view of the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is seized
of the matter, as such, the contempt petition before this
Court would be of no purpose. Even if the citation is
applicable as per the understanding of Mr. Arora on the facts
of the case but that can only be taken into consideration once
this Court comes to deal with the contempt upon its revival
and, therefore, this Court is reviving the contempt petition
being CPSW No. 353/2013 for its consideration on
03.07.2024.
07. The present review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
01.05.2024
Bunty
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
