Manipur High Court
Ch. Nalini Sunita Devi vs Shri Mangsatabam Harekrishna on 17 August, 2022
1
JOHN Digitally signed
by JOHN TELEN
KOM
TELEN Date:
2022.08.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
KOM 10:02:46
+05'30' AT IMPHAL
Contempt Case(Civil) No.38 of 2022
Ref:WP(C)No.761 of 2021
Ch. Nalini Sunita Devi, aged about 62 years, W/o M.
Yaiskul Singh of Wangkhei Thambalkhong Lisham Leirak,
PO & PS Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
....... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Shri Mangsatabam Harekrishna, IAS, Principal
Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary(Education-S)
Government of Manipur, office at Old Secretariat,
Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
2. Shri L. Nandakumar Singh, the Director of Education(S),
Government of Manipur, office at Lamphelpat, PO & PS
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
.... Respondents
Contempt case No.38 of 2022 Page 1
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr.Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. RK Deepak, Adv.
Date of reserved : 25.07.2022.
Date of order : 17.08.2022.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. RK Deepak, learned counsel for the
respondents/contemnors.
[2] This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner alleging
non-compliance of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.761
of 2021.
[3] By the order dated 28.10.2021, this Court passed the following
order in the writ petition:
"4. Therefore, without going into the merits and demerits of the
petitioner's case, I am inclined to pass the following orders:-
Contempt case No.38 of 2022 Page 2
(a) This writ petition is disposed.
(b) The petitioner is directed to send the representation to
both the respondents within a period of 2 (two) weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(c) On receipt of the said representation within the
stipulated period of time fixed by this Court, the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider and
pass appropriate speaking order by giving personal
opportunity to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three)
months thereafter.
5. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition
is disposed of."
[4] During the course arguments, the learned Government
Advocate, by placing reliance upon the order dated 25.4.2002 passed by
the Director of Education (S), submitted that the order of this Court dated
28.10.2021 has been duly complied with and therefore, the contempt
petition may be closed.
[5] Alleging non-compliance of the order of this Court dated
28.10.2021, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
order dated 25.4.2002 is not in tune with the prayer made by the petitioner
in the writ petition as well as the representation made by the petitioner
Contempt case No.38 of 2022 Page 3
pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 28.10.2021. thus, the
respondents disobeyed the order of this Court. Thus, they are to be
punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
[6] As stated supra, by the order dated 28.10.2021, this Court
directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents within
a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Accordingly, the petitioner has also submitted his representation on
10.11.2021. The petitioner also sent a legal notice dated 19.11.2021
praying the same relief as prayed in the representation dated 10.11.2021.
Upon receipt of the representation as well as the legal notice dated
19.11.2021 and pending contempt case, the Director of Education (S) has
passed an order dated 25.04.2022. In paragraph 6, it has been stated as
under:
"6. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it has
been arrived to the conclusion as ordered herein that the
prayer of the Petitioner for payment of pensionary benefits
and other retiral benefits has already been considered as
necessary pension papers/relevant documents in respect of
the petitioner has already been submitted to the Under
Secretary 9Pension Cell), Government of Manipur vide letter
Contempt case No.38 of 2022 Page 4
No.2/181/2009-ED(S/V) Pension dated the 28th March,
2002."
[7] If the petitioner has any grievance over the aforesaid order
dated 25.04.2022, he has to challenge the same in the manner known to
law and cannot contend that the respondent authorities have wilfully
disobeyed the order of this Court dated 28.10.2021.
[8] It is settled law that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction
cannot enlarge the scope of the relief claimed and the direction given in the
main proceedings. As stated supra, though the prayer in the writ petition is
to direct the respondent authorities to release/pay/payment of the
pensionary benefits and other entitled retiral benefits of the petitioner
without causing any undue delay, while hearing the writ petition, the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that before approaching this
Court, the petitioner has not submitted any representation and therefore, it
is suffice if the Court direct the petitioner to submit a representation and
upon receipt of the same, direct the respondents to consider the same and
pass orders. It appears that the aforesaid direction has been duly complied
with by issuing the order dated 25.4.2022 pending contempt case. The
Contempt case No.38 of 2022 Page 5
correctness of the order dated 25.04.2022 cannot be gone into in this
contempt petition.
[9] The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily
concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is
alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the
judgment and order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the
order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher Court if according
to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to
be agitated before the higher Court. The Court exercising contempt
jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings
in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or order. Right
or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would
render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for
contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of
which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been
done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order.
It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional
directions or delete any direction. That would be exercising review
Contempt case No.38 of 2022 Page 6
jurisdiction while dealing with petition for initiating of contempt proceedings.
The same would be impermissible and indefensible.
[10] In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
pending contempt petition due compliance of the order dated 28.10.2021
passed in the W.P.No.(C) No.761 of 2021 has been made and this Court
cannot enlarge the scope exercising contempt jurisdiction.
[11] In the result,
(a) the contempt case is closed by giving liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the order dated 25.04.2022 in the
manner known to law if the petitioner is aggrieved.
(b) No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
Contempt case No.38 of 2022 Page 7
