Jharkhand High Court
The West Bengal Power Development ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2024
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022
-----
The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited
through its Authorised Signatory Souvik Mridha, Assistant
Manager (Legal), Kolkata (West Bengal).
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjay Mishra, Assistant General Manager and Branch
Manager, Indian Bank, Large Corporate Branch, Hare Street,
Kolkata, West Bengal.
.......... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
: Mr. Atul Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Priti Priyamvada, A.C. to G.P.V
-----
Order No.08 Date: 01.08.2024
1. The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of
contempt proceeding against the opposite party no. 2 alleging
wilful & deliberate disobedience and non-compliance of the order
dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Court of Tribunal Judge under
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred as the Act, 1957), Rajmahal Project Area,
Lalmatia at Godda in Misc. Case Nos. 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08 of
2018 whereby the said Court had clearly observed/directed that
any revocation of Bank Guarantee would be subject to its
decision. However, despite the said observation/direction, the
opposite party no. 2 partially appropriated an amount of
Rs. 223,51,65,000/- from the Bank Guarantees furnished by the
petitioner and transferred the same in Bank Account
No. 0276050414586 of Punjab National Bank Cannaught Circus
Branch, New Delhi on 21.07.2022.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had filed five miscellaneous applications being Misc. Case
Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 of 2018 under section 27 of Coal Mines
(Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as the Act,
2015) in the court of Tribunal Judge under the Act, 1957,
Rajmahal Project Area, Lalmatiya at Godda in which learned
Tribunal Judge vide order dated 12.10.2018 held as under:-
"In view of the facts, the stay granted by this
Tribunal which has already been lapsed on 06.10.2018
is not extended, however it is made clear that any
revocation of Bank Guarantee will be subject to the
decision of the Tribunal."
3. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has
committed Contempt of Court by remitting the amount of
Rs.223,51,65,000/- in the bank account of Nominated Authority,
Ministry of Coal, Government of India, New Delhi after partial
appropriation of the Bank Guarantees submitted by the petitioner
knowing fully well that the said Nominated Authority did not insist
for partial invocation/appropriation of the Bank Guarantee at the
time of its renewal in the year 2019 subsequent to the order
dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Learned Tribunal Judge under
C.B.A. Act, Godda in Misc. Case Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 of 2018 and
now after expiring of more than 3 ½ years from passing of the
said order, the Bank Guarantees have been partially encashed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, at the outset, raises
objection with respect to maintainability of the present contempt
petition by submitting that the petitioner has chosen a wrong
forum by filing the present contempt application, rather it should
2 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022
have filed Execution Case for implementation of the order dated
12.10.2018 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 4,5,6,7,8 of 2018.
5. The primary question falls for consideration before this Court is
as to whether filing of the present contempt petition alleging
wilful violation of the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Court
of Tribunal Judge under the Act, 1957, Rajmahal Project Area,
Lalmatia at Godda in Misc. Case Nos. 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08 of
2018, is maintainable?
6. Article 215 of the Constitution of India enumerates that every
High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers
of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of
itself. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(in short, 'the Act, 1971"), "civil contempt" means wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or
other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given
to a Court. Section 11 of the said Act provides that a High Court
shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself
or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged
to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its
jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of
contempt is within or outside such limits. Section 23 of the Act,
1971 provides that the Supreme Court or, as the case may be,
any High Court may make rules, not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its
procedure.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Vasudeva,
Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas
3 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022
Corporation and Others Vs. M. George Ravishekaran &
Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373, has held that the power
vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for
contempt is a special and rare power available both under the
Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a
drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty
of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very
nature of the power casts a sacred duty upon the Courts to
exercise the same with greatest care and caution.
8. In the case of R.N. Dey & Others Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik
& Others reported in (2000) 4 SCC 400, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in
abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution
of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative
remedy in law is provided. Discretion given to the court is to be
exercised for maintenance of the court's dignity and majesty of
law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the
court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a
contemner and the court.
9. The aforesaid judgment has also been followed in the case of
Hukum Chand Deswal Vs. Satish Raj Deswal reported in
(2021) 13 SCC 166.
10. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others Vs.
Sheo Shankar Mishra reported in 1995 SCC OnLine Pat
358, learned Division Bench of Patna High Court has held as
under:-
4 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022
"12. The execution proceeding as well as
contempt proceeding both are independent proceedings
and they operate in two different fields or spheres. So
far as the execution proceeding is concerned, that is
filed by a party against the other party to the litigation
for enforcement of the rights and liabilities created
under the decree or the order. The contempt
proceedings are proceedings to uphold the prestige and
the dignity of the court and majesty of law. It has
nothing to do with the execution of the decree or order
passed in a litigation. One proceeding cannot be termed
as a substitute for the other. The contempt proceeding
cannot be used as a weapon against the judgment
debtor to force him to comply with the decree or order.
The contempt proceeding can be initiated only when the
materials on record show wilful disobedience of the
order. Raising valid objection in the execution
proceeding regarding executability of the decree under
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or under
any law, or taking other recourse of similar type
permissible in law in an execution proceeding, cannot be
turned as a wilful disobedience and a proceeding for
contempt cannot be initiated on that ground."
11. In the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi
reported in (2012) 4 SCC 307, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that when the matter relates to the infringement of a
decree or decretal order, it is not expedient to invoke and
exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing the decree
or merely because other remedies may take time or are more
circumlocutory in character.
12. Now, it is well settled that the power to issue contempt is a
special and rare power available both under the Constitution of
India as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the same
has to be exercised with greatest care and caution. The weapon
of contempt cannot be used for execution of a decree or
implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law
has been provided. Discretion given to the court is to be
5 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022
exercised for maintenance of the court's dignity and majesty of
law. Further, no party has right to insist the court to exercise
jurisdiction under Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as contempt is
between a contemner and the court.
13. In the present case, Misc. Case Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of 2018 were
filed by the petitioner under section 27 of the Act, 2015 before
the Tribunal Judge under the Act, 1957. Section 27(1) of the Act,
2015 provides that any dispute arising out of any action of the
Central Government, nominated authority or Commissioner of
payment or designated custodian, or any dispute between the
successful bidder or allottee and prior allottee arising out of any
issue connected with the Act shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal
constituted under the Act, 1957.
14. On perusal of the Act, 1957 it is evident that the constitution of
Tribunal has been provided under section 14(2) of the said Act
which empowers the Central Government to constitute Tribunal
consisting of a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a
Judge of a High Court. It is further provided under Section 14(5)
of the Act, 1957 that the Tribunal after hearing the dispute, shall
make an award determining the amount of compensation which
appears to it to be just, and specify the person or persons to
whom the compensation shall be paid; and in making the award
the Tribunal shall have regard to the circumstances of each case
and to the foregoing provisions of the said Act with respect to
the manner in which the amount of compensation shall be
determined in so far as the said provisions or any of them may
be applicable. Moreover, Section 14(8) of the Act, 1957 provides
6 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022
that the Tribunal, in the proceedings before it, shall have all the
powers of a Civil Court as provided under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 in respect of summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring
the discovery and production of any document; reception of
evidence on affidavits; requisitioning any public record from any
court or office; and issuing commissions for examination of
witnesses. Further, Section 23 of the Act, 1957 contains the
provision of penalties for a person who wilfully obstructs any
person in doing any of the acts authorised by sub-section (3) of
section 4 or wilfully fills up, destroys, damages or displaces any
mark made under section 4, or wilfully obstructs the lawful
exercise of any other power conferred by or under the said Act,
or fails to comply with any order made or direction given under
the Act. The said Section provides that such persons shall be
liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
15. The Act, 2015 does not speak about the procedure to be followed
by the Tribunal for non-compliance of any order passed by it
while dealing with the cases under section 27 of the Act, 2015.
This Court is of the view that since the Tribunal constituted under
the Act, 1957 has been empowered to deal with the cases under
section 27 of the Act, 2015, the provision of penalties provided
under section 23 of the Act, 1957 for non-compliance of any of
the orders or directions given under the said Act, will equally
apply to the non-compliance of any order passed by the Tribunal
7 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022
while dealing with the cases under section 27 of the Act, 2015.
Under the said circumstance, the petitioner has the remedy to
file application before the Tribunal itself for taking action under
section 23 of the Act, 1957 against the opposite party no. 2 if it
feels that the opposite party no. 2 has shown disobedience of the
order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Court of Tribunal, Judge
under C.B.A. Act.
16. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view
that the present contempt petition is not maintainable.
17. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not
maintainable. The petitioner will, however, be at liberty to
approach before the Tribunal Judge under C.B.A. Act, Rajmahal
Project Area, Lalmatia at Godda against the opposite party no.2
alleging non-compliance of the order dated 12.10.2018. If the
said application is filed, the Tribunal Judge shall pass appropriate
order looking to the merit of the claim of the parties without
being prejudiced by the dismissal of the present contempt
petition.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Vikas/AFR
8 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022
