Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chameli Bai vs Rashmi Chaturvedi on 21 March, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2023
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 867 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
CHAMELI BAI W/O LATE SHRI SONILAL BHUMIA
OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION R/O VILLAGE INDRANA,
TEHSIL MAJHOLI, DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.K. PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RASHMI CHATURVEDI W/O NOT MENTION
OCCUPATION: TEHSILDAR MAJHOLI DISTT.
JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEHARIYA STATION HOUSE OFFICER INDRANA
TEH. MAJHOLI DISTT. JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging violation of the
order dated 01-06-2018 passed by the Collector, Jabalpur.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that before
the Collector, Jabalpur, an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1971"] was moved by the
present petitioner. In the said application it was putforth by the petitioner that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
on an application moved by the petitioner proceedings under Sections 115 and
116 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 [for brevity "the Code"] were
initiated. And, the said application was forwarded by the Collector, Jabalpur
vide order dated 4-12-2017 to Tahsildar, Majhouli District Jabalpur, with a
direction to take a decision thereon, after considering the documents and stand
of the parties. However, as the said order was not being complied with by the
Tahsildar, the present petitioner preferred an application before the Collector,
Jabalpur under Section 12 of the Act of 1971.
3. The Collector, vide order dated 01-6-2018 disposed of the said
application with the direction to the Tahsildar, Majhauli District Jabalpur, to
ensure compliance of the earlier order of the Collector, dated 04-12-2017 and
initiate appropriate action under Section 248 of the Code, as regards removal of
encroachment from the Government land.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner strenuously urged that the said
order of the Collector has not been complied with by the respondents. It is
also contended by the learned counsel that respondents have filed a reply and in
the reply, it is nowhere explained by the respondents as to why, the order dated
01-6-2018 passed by the Collector, Jabalpur has not been complied with. It is
vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents
have taken recourse to a misconceived stand in their reply, that the present
contempt petition is not maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that the present
petition is maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow vs.
Vinay Chandra Misra, (1981) 1 SCC 436. Accordingly appropriate action
be taken against the respondents for non-compliance of the order passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
Collector, dated 01-6-2018.
6. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and
perused the records.
7 . The petitioner has filed this contempt petition, alleging non-
compliance of the order passed by the Collector, Jabalpur dated 01-6-2018,
which is contained in Annexure-C/1. A perusal of the impugned order reflects
that the present petitioner moved an application under Section 12 of the Act of
1971 before the Collector, Jabalpur, who passed the order on the said
application, dated 01-6-2018.
8. The issue which requires for consideration in the present case is,
as to whether the order dated 01-6-2018 could have been passed by the
Collector, inasmuch as the Act of 1971 has been enacted with the object to
define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempts of courts
and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto ?
9. In the present case, the Collector being a revenue authority, was
approached by the petitioner by way of an application under Section 12 of the
Act of 1971. And, the Collector while dealing with the said application, vide
order dated 01-6-2018, directed the Tahsildar, Majhauli, to ensure compliance
of the earlier order of the Collector, dated 4-12-2017. Therefore, in the present
case, an order passed by the revenue authority, i.e. the Collector, Jabalpur is
being sought to be implemented, while seeking invocation of the provisions of
Section 10 of the Act of 1971.
10. The Apex Court in the case of S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board
of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow (supra) was dealing with an issue to the effect
that, as to whether Board or Revenue, is subordinate to the High Court, within
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
the purview of Section 10 of the Act of 1971. The Apex Court while
considering the phrase "courts subordinate to it" as employed in Section 10 of
the Act of 1971, observed that the same is wide enough to include all courts
which are judicially subordinate to the High Court.
11. In the said case an application under Sections 143 and 144 of
the U.P. Zamindari & Land Reforms Act, was ensued in passing of a decree by
a revenue officer, was disputed by filing an appeal before the Commissioner,
who allowed the appeal vide order dated 10-9-1972 and decreed the suit.
Thereafter, against the decree of the Commissioner, defendants therein,
preferred a Revenue Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue. During
course of hearing some incident took place. Alleging misconduct during hearing
on the part of the Member, Board of Revenue, the counsel for litigant therein,
moved a contempt petition before the High Court against the Member, Board of
Revenue itself.
The Member, Board of Revenue controverted the said contempt petition
on the ground that in absence of reference by the Court or by the Advocate
General, cognizance of contempt petition could not have been taken. The High
Court rejected the objection of the Member, Board of Revenue. The order of
the High Court was assailed by the Member, Board of Revenue before the
Apex Court.
The Apex Court while dealing with the provision of Section 15 of the
Contempt of Court Act concluded that the High Court did not act improperly in
taking cognizance of the matter. Therefore, in the case of S.K. Sarkar, Member
Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with a
case of criminal contempt, as allegations against the Member, Board of
Revenue, were to the effect that he abused the counsel and instructed the Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
peon to throw the counsel out of Court Room.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the overt act of the person
concerned, the Apex Court held that the Board of Revenue is a "Court" within
the meaning of Act of 1971.
12. To deal with the crux of the matter, as to whether Collector is a
"Court" within the meaning of the Act of 1971, it is profitable to refer to the
decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Brajnandan Sinha vs.
Jyoti Narain, AIR 1956 SC 66, wherein the Apex Court while dealing with
the question that a Commissioner appointed under Section 8 of the Public
Servants (Inquiries) Act [37 of 1850] is a Court or not for the purposes of
Section 2 of the Act of 1971, in para 8 ruled thus :
"8. The word "Court was not defined in the Act and
the expression "Courts subordinate to the High Courts"
would prima facie mean the the Courts of Law subordinate to
the High Courts in the hierarchy of Courts established for
the purpose of administration of justice throughout the
Union."
The Apex Court in paras 14 and 18 of the judgment further held as under
:
"14. The pronouncement of a definitive judgment is thus
considered the essential sine qua non of a Court and unless and
until a binding and authoritative judgment can be pronounced by
a person or body of person it cannot be predicated that he or they
constitute a Court.
xx xx xx
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
1 8 . It is clear, therefore, that in order to constitute a
Court in the strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that
the Court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of
a judicial tribunal, power to give a decision or a definitive
judgment which has finality and authoritativeness which are the
essential tests of a judicial pronouncement."
Thereafter, the Apex Court while referring to another decision rendered in
the case of S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union of India, (1954) SCR 1150 , in
para 26 observed as under :
"26. These provisions were considered by this Court in the
case of S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India [(1954) SCR 1150] .
The question that arose for consideration there was whether an
inquiry made and concluded under the Act amounted to
prosecution and punishment for an offence as contemplated under
Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Articles of charge had been
framed against the petitioner in that case and evidence had been
led both by the prosecutor and by the defence and witnesses on
b oth sides were examined on oath and cross-examined and re-
examined in the usual manner. The Commissioner had found, on a
consideration of the evidence, that some of the charges had been
proved against the petitioner and had submitted a report to that
effect to the Government. The President had accepted the opinion
of the Commissioner and, in view of the findings on the several
charges arrived at by the latter, was provisionally of the opinion
that the petitioner should be dismissed. Opportunity was given to
Signature Not Verified
the petitioner under Article 311(2) of the Constitution to show
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and
after considering his representation and after consultation with the
Union Public Service Commission, the President finally decided to
impose the penalty of dismissal upon him and he was accordingly
dismissed. After his dismissal, the police submitted a charge-sheet
against him before the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Delhi,
charging him with offences under Sections 161 and 165 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and upon that summons were issued by the learned
Judge directing the petitioner to appear before his Court. The
petitioner thereupon challenged the legality of this proceeding in a
writ petition contending that the proceedings were without
jurisdiction inasmuch as they amounted to a fresh prosecution for
offences for which he had been prosecuted and punished already."
The Apex Court while referring to the decision of the Nagpur High Court
rendered in the case of M.V. Rajwade vs. Dr. S.M Hassan, AIR 1954 SC
Nag 71, in para 29 of the judgement observed as follows :
"29. ..........They rightly observed that the term "Court" has not
been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The Act, however,
does contemplate a "˜Court of Justice" which as defined in Section 20
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, denotes "˜a judge who is empowered
by law to act judicially". The least that is required of a Court is the
capacity to deliver a "definitive judgment"Â, and unless this power vests
in a tribunal in any particular case, the mere fact that the procedure
adopted by it is of a legal character and it has the power to administer
an oath will not impart to it the status of a Court, and came to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
conclusion that the commission appointed under the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, 1952 is not a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1952."
Thereafter, in para 30 of the judgement the Apex Court concluded thus :
"3 0 . We are of the opinion that neither of these cases
which have been relied upon by Shri Purshottam Tricamdas is of
any help to the respondent or detracts from the true position as we
have laid down above. The only conclusion to which we can come
on a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the Act is that
the Commissioner appointed under the Act is not a Court within
the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952."
13. In Virindar Kumar Satyawadi vs. State of Punjab, AIR
1956 SC 153 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking into consideration its
decision rendered in the case of Bharat Bank Ltd. vs. Employees of Bharat
Bank Ltd., 1950 SCC 470 : (1950) SCR 459 ruled thus :
"7. ......It may be stated broadly that what distinguishes a Court
from a quasi-judicial tribunal is that it is charged with a duty to decide
disputes in a judicial manner and declare the rights of parties in a
definitive judgment. To decide in a judicial manner involves that the
parties are entitled as a matter of right to be heard in support of their
claim and to adduce evidence in proof of it. And it also imports an
obligation on the part of the authority to decide the matter on a
consideration of the evidence adduced and in accordance with law.
When a question therefore arises as to whether an authority created by
an Act is a Court as distinguished from a quasi-judicial tribunal, what
has to be decided is whether having regard to the provisions of the Act it
possesses all the attributes of a Court."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
14. A Division Bench of this Court as well, in the case of
Moolchand Deshlahara vs. K.K. Naidu, Sub-Divisional Officer,
Waraseoni and others, 1969 ILR 159 held as under :
"Afte r hearing Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the
petitioner, we have reached the conclusion that this petition must be
dismissed on the short ground that the Collector, or any Revenue Officer
authorised by him, holding an enquiry under Sub-section (7) of Section
247 into an allegation of illegal extraction or removal of mineral from
any mine or quarry does not function as a "court", but functions as a
Revenue or fiscal officer. The expression "ÂœCourts subordinate to the
High Courts", for the purposes of section 3 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1952, means, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Brajnandan
inha v. Jyoti Narain [AIR 1956 SC 66.] , the Courts of law subordinate to
the High Courts in the hierarchy of Courts established for the purpose
o f administration of justice throughout the Union. The Collector, or a
Revenue Officer authorised by the Collector, holding an enquiry u/s.
247(7) of the Code is clearly not a "ÂœCourt subordinate to the High
Court"Â within the meaning of section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1952."
15. Thereafter, again a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh through, Collector, Gwalior vs. LC. Bahirani
and others, 1983 MPLJ 835 while dealing with the provisions of sections 6-
A and 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act (70 of 1955) held as under :
" 9 . In the light of the forgoing discussion, we are of the
opinion that Collector acting under Section 6-A of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955, is not a Court for the purpose of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971."
16. The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in S.K. Sarkar,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow (supra) is not applicable to the
facts of the present case, inasmuch as the Collector Jabalpur, has passed the
order dated 01-6-2018 arising out of proceedings under sections 116 and 117 of
the M.P. Land Revenue Code, and Collector cannot be brought within the
ambit and sweep of the "Court" for the purpose of the Act of 1971. Collector
is not judicially subordinate to this Court.
17. Thus analysed, the instant contempt petition, sans substratum
and being not maintainable, is hereby dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/28/2023
5:15:49 PM
