Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rekha Singhal Agrawal vs Shri Ashok Kumar Shah on 7 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5284
1 CONC-928-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 7 th OF MARCH, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 928 of 2020
REKHA SINGHAL AGRAWAL
Versus
SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SHAH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Upendra Yadav - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Nitin Agrawal - Advocate for respondent No. 1.
ORDER
By this contempt petition, petitioner has complained non-compliance of
order dated 31.1.2019 passed in WP No.20821/2018 by which respondents were
directed to convene the review DPC.
2. It is submitted by Shri Agrawal that review DPC was convened and
petitioner has been found to be unfit.
3. It is submitted by Shri Yadav that respondents had deliberately
committed the same mistake and submitted that officer, who had downgraded the
ACR, reviewed the case after becoming Principal Secretary and, accordingly, it is
submitted that the decision taken in review DPC is bad.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.
5. This Court had not directed the respondents to grant promotion to the
petitioner or to take decision in a particular manner in the review DPC.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Arumugam Vs. V. Balakrishnan
and Others reported in (2019) 18 SCC 150 had held as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5284
2 CONC-928-2020
"18. 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, J., held as under: (SCC pp.381-82, para 19)
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5284
3 CONC-928-2020
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 ]
19. 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."
Therefore, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 215 of
Constitution of India cannot go beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been disobeyed.
7. Since the direction was only to convene review DPC and the review DPC
has been convened, therefore, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision
taken by the committee, then same cannot be adjudicated in this contempt
proceeding and the petitioner is required to prefer a separate writ petition.
8. With aforesaid liberty, contempt petition is dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
