Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Krishna Gopal Dwivedi vs Shri Prabhanshu Kamal on 17 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3866
1 CONC-586-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 586 of 2016
DR. KRISHNA GOPAL DWIVEDI
Versus
SHRI PRABHANSHU KAMAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Smrati Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
This contempt petition has been filed complaining the non-compliance of
order dated 07.05.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.9118/2012 by which
respondents were directed to hold the review DPC for reconsideration of claim of
petitioner and private respondents afresh.
2. Respondents have filed their compliance report and it was pleaded that
State Government had convened the review DPC and review DPC has maintained
the recommendations which were made by earlier DPC.
3. Disputing the compliance report, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner
that since in the review DPC, earlier recommendations have been maintained,
therefore, it is clear that order has not been complied with in its letter and spirit.
4. Heard counsel for applicant.
5. Supreme Court in the case of Engineer K. Arumugam Vs. V.
Balakrishnan and others decided on 06.02.2019 passed in Civil Appeal
No.1510/2019 has held that while entertaining the contempt jurisdiction, Court
should not travel beyond the four corners of order and has held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3866
2 CONC-586-2016
"17. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the
four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. Observing that
in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel beyond the four
corners of the order which is alleged to have been floated, in Sudhir
Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited and others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others
(2014) 3 SCC 373, speaking for the Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi held
as under:-
"19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this
Court 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 in the Courts to exercise the same
with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary
as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea
involves a process of self determination of the sweep,
meaning and effect of the order in respect of which
disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore,
travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to
have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been
dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of
which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a
judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be
taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation
of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the
plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure
that while considering a contempt plea the power available to
the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or
appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction
supplemental to what has been already expressed should be
issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the
domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more
appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as
noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the
cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar,
namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002)
5 SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju (2004)
13 SCC 610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction
Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339
and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC
613." [underlining added]
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3866
3 CONC-586-2016
Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear that the
Single Judge fell in error in entertaining the contempt petition and
further erred in directing the TWAD Board to pay compensation at the
rate of Rs.600/- per sq. ft. which works out to more than
Rs.4,00,00,000/-. It is public money and having implications on the
public exchequer, the public money cannot be allowed to be taken away
by an individual by filing contempt petition thereby arm-twisting the
authorities. The order passed by the learned Single Judge affirmed by
the Division Bench is ex-facie erroneous and liable to be set aside.
6. By order dated 07.05.2015, this Court had directed to convene the DPC
and then to reconsider the claim of petitioner and other private respondents. If the
petitioner is aggrieved by recommendations made by review DPC, then they have
a remedy of assailing the same by filing fresh petition but under the garb of power
under Article 215 of Constitution of India, this Court cannot compel the
respondents to take a decision in a particular manner, specifically when liberty
was granted to reconsider the case of petitioner.
7. Accordingly, with liberty to petitioner that if so advised, then he can file a
writ petition thereby challenging the recommendations made by review DPC, this
contempt petition is dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Rashid
