Manipur High Court
Page |2 vs Mr. John K. Sellate on 13 March, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2023.03.15 13:28:57 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019
1. Ningthoujam Loli Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o (L)
N. Brajamani Singh of Wahengbam Leikai, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-
795001.
2. W. Rajamani Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o (L) W.
Aber Singh of Naoremthong Takyel Khongbal CRPF
Group Centre Imphal, P.O. Langjing, P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795001.
3. Rajkumar Sanatombi Singh, aged about 60 years,
S/o Rajkumar Madhusana Singh of Singjamei
Mayengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal
West District, Manipur, Pin- 795001.
4. Mangkhojang Haokip, aged about 50 years, S/o
Henkholet Haokip of Leibolkholen, P.O. & P.S. New
Keithelmanbi, Senapati District, Manipur, Pin-
795120.
5. Md. Akebudin, aged about 61 years, S/o Emamudin
of Khomidok, P.O. Pangei P.S. Heingang, Imphal
East District, Manipur, Pin- 795114.
6. Ningthoujam Ibocha Singh, aged about 67 years, S/o
(L) N. Aber Singh of Changangei Maning Leikai, P.O.
Tulihal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin- 795004.
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
Page |2
7. Golmei Shankokna, aged about 60 years, S/o Golmei
Khuidilung of Noney, P.O. & P.S. Noney,
Tamenglong District, Manipur, Pin 795141.
8. Y. Yaiskul Singh, aged 61 years, S/o (L) Y. Kala
Singh of Kakwa Lamdaibung, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin- 795008.
9. Laishram Ibemnao Chanu, aged about 49 years, S/o
Laishram Thoiba Meitei of Keishamthong Elangbam
Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur, Pin- 795001.
10. Chance Raikham, aged about 60 years, S/o (L)
Haorei of Langol Ningthou Leikai, Imphal, P.O. & P.S.
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795004.
11. A. Kala Singh, aged about 67 years, S/o (L) A.
Thambal Singh of Samurou Awang Leikai Bazar,
P.O. & P.S. Wangoi, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin - 795008.
......Petitioners
-Versus-
Mr. John K. Sellate, the Principal Accountant General,
(A&E), Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur, Pin- 795001.
.......Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
Page |3
For the Petitioners :: Mr. S. Rupachandra, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondents :: Mr. S. Suresh, Advocate
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 27.02.2023
Date of Judgment & Order :: 13.03.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(M.V. Muralidaran, Acting CJ)
This contempt petition has been filed by the
petitioners under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the
respondent for the deliberate and willful violation of the order
dated 25.1.2022 passed in Contempt Case (C) No.67 of 2020.
2. Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. S. Suresh, the learned counsel for the
respondent/contemnor.
3. Mr. S. Rupachandra, the learned senior counsel for
the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and one Raghu
Leishangthem have earlier filed W.P.(C) No.636 of 2019 praying
for payment of personally protected pay scale and to refund the
deducted amount from pension as well as not to deduct any
amount any more from their pensionary benefits. By order dated
19.8.2019, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
Page |4
petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the Commissioner
of Excise, Government of Manipur for redressal and pursuant to
the aforesaid direction, the petitioners have also submitted
representations dated 21.8.2019 and 18.10.2019 respectively,
which were followed by issuance of a legal notice dated
22.11.2019. Despite receipt of the representations and the legal
notice, no action was taken. In the meanwhile, on 25.2.2020 the
respondent/contemnor herein has written a letter to the
Commissioner of Excise for fixation of pay and another letter
dated 27.2.2020 to the Principal Secretary (Finance).
4. The learned counsel would submit that despite the
approval conveyed and allowing to fix pay scale vide letter dated
18.3.2021 of the Secretariat of Finance/PIC, still the respondent
seeking clarification. Even after the lapse of the time period
stipulated by this Court in the writ petition, the authorities did not
communicate anything to the petitioners nor comply with the
Court's order. In such situation, the petitioners have filed
Contempt Case (C) No.67 of 2020 and the same was disposed
of on 25.1.2022 after recording the compliance order dated
30.7.2020 passed by the authority concerned.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the
existence of the order dated 25.1.2022 has been communicated
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
Page |5
to the respondent on 31.1.2022 and despite receipt of the same,
no action was taken by the respondent nor any communication
is made to the petitioners. The said act and inaction of the
respondent amounts to wilful violation of the order of the Court
passed in the Contempt Case (C) No.67 of 2020 and, as such, it
attracts for criminal proceedings of Contempt of Courts. Before
initiation of the present contempt petition, the petitioners had
written a letter to the learned Advocate-General on 8.3.2020 to
provide his consent for filing criminal contempt stating that the
recently retired petitioners have not been released their
retirement benefits due to non-fixation of scale of pay and also a
huge amount has been deducted from the pensioners of the
Department and also likely to deduct from the pensionary
benefits of the petitioners.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
narrating all these things, the petitioners have filed Contempt
Case (Cril.) No.1 of 2022 and the same was earlier heard by the
learned Single Judge and by the order dated 4.5.2022, the
nomenclature of the said contempt case has been changed as
Contempt Case (C) No.64 of 2022 and the petitioners have also
withdrawn the said contempt case with liberty to approach the
appropriate forum. The petitioners have also submitted
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
Page |6
application dated 16.5.2022 to the learned Advocate General for
filing criminal contempt. Since in deserving case, consent of the
learned Advocate General is not required and the present
contempt petition is one such case, without consent of the
learned Advocate General, the criminal contempt petition has
been filed. For the violation of the order of this Court, particularly
in Contempt Case (C) No.67 of 2020, the initiation of criminal
contempt against the respondent is very much required.
7. The respondent/contemnor questioned the
maintainability of the present contempt case, inter alia,
contending that the order dated 30.7.2020 came to be issued by
the Finance Department (Expenditure Section) purportedly in
compliance of the order dated 19.8.2019 passed in W.P.(C)
Nos.636 of 2019 and 313 of 2020 respectively. However, a
necessity arose for seeking certain clarification of the order dated
30.7.2020 and, as such, the Chief Secretary (Finance/PIC),
Government of Manipur was requested vide letter dated
18.2.2021 of the Excise Department to look into the matter and
to convey the decision of the Government of Manipur as to
whether revision of pay under the Manipur Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2010 will be made with reference to the personal pay
scales as prescribed under Manipur Services (Revised Pay)
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
Page |7
Rules, 1999 or as per the latest Rule 3(3) of the Manipur Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 read with the notification of the
Finance Department dated 28.12.2006 in order to comply with
the orders of this Court and to avoid future legal complications.
The Finance Department, in its letter dated 18.3.2021, clarified
that the fixation of pay should be as per Rule 3(3) read with the
notification dated 28.12.2006 and the pay of the employees of
Excise Department where financial upgradation has been
granted under order dated 8.11.2007, 15.1.2020 and 18.10.2020
and the corrigendum dated 18.12.2017 shall be allowed on the
basis of the letter dated 11.10.2010.
8. Mr. S. Suresh, the learned counsel for the
respondent/contemnor further submitted that the clarification
dated 18.3.2021 is not in consonance with the notification dated
28.12.2006 which required downgradation of pay scales and this
has resulted in differential application of revision pay Rules
amongst different Departments of the Government such as by
continuing pay scales under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 1999 in the case of employees of Excise Department and
then switch over to Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010
and on the other hand by downgrading of pay scales and then
switch over to Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 for
the employees of other Departments.
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
Page |8
9. The learned counsel would submit that due to non-
finalisation/non-communication of the final decision by the
concerned State authority, the respondent/contemnor was put in
such a position where he could not be proceed any further in the
matter. The legal notice dated 31.1.2022 was served by the
learned counsel for the petitioners thereby highlighting the
closure of the Contempt Case (C) No.67 of 2020 by its order
dated 25.1.2022.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the respondent herein was not represented by the counsel
while passing the order dated 25.1.2022 in Contempt Case (C)
No.67 of 2020 and the respondent has also taken steps for filing
review petition to review the order dated 25.1.2022. However,
before filing the review petition, the Finance Department vide
letter dated 10.5.2022 informed the respondent that no recovery
as proposed may be made from the retired employees of Excise
Department and that the pay fixation may be made as per Rule
3(3) read with the notification dated 28.12.2006 and the
clarification dated 7.7.2010 and the payment of their pension may
be calculated based on the basis of the substantive scale of pay
of the concerned employees of the Excise Department to be
drawn on the date of their retirement.
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
Page |9
11. Pursuant to the decision of the Government as
communicated vide letter dated 10.5.2022 and after following
due process, actions have been taken for compliance of the
order. Out of 12 petitioners in W.P.(C) No.636 of 2019, the
pension papers/service books of four petitioners 2 to 4 and 9
have not been received in the office and the information
regarding the financial upgradation extended to them and the
period etc. were not available.
12. In respect of petitioners 1 and 11, they are drawing
pension at higher scale since retirement i.e. 1.3.2015 and
1.1.2015 respectively and no recovery was made from 1.7.2005
to 31.3.2010. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, recovery
was affected only from 1.4.2010 to 28.2.2015 which had now
been refunded to him vide letter dated 27.5.2022. For the petition
No.11, no recovery was made from 1.7.2005 to 30.6.2006 and
from 1.1.2007 to 31.3.2010 and recovery was affected only from
1.7.2006 to 26.12.2006 and from 1.4.2010 to 31.12.2014 which
had now been refunded to him vide letter dated 27.5.2022. In
respect of petitioners 7 and 8, pension payment are being drawn
as per Rule 3(3) of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
2010 since the date of retirement on 1.1.2020 and 1.3.2021
respectively and both the petitioners 7 and 8 enjoyed higher pay
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 10
from 1.7.2005 to 29.2.2020 and from 1.7.2005 to 28.2.2021
respectively and no recovery was effect with effect from 1.4.2010
till the date of retirement. In respect of petitioner No.10, pension
payment is being drawn as per Rule 3(3) and he enjoyed higher
pay with effect from 1.7.2005 till the date of retirement on
28.2.2019 and no recovery was affected in his case instead a
fresh pay slip granting higher pay was issued to him for a period
covering 1.10.2015 to 28.2.2019. Arguing so, the learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no violation of
the order of this Court and the contempt of court more specifically
the criminal contempt alleged by the petitioner does not arise.
Further, the present contempt petition has been filed without
obtaining consent from the learned Advocate General and
therefore, the same is not maintainable and liable to be
dismissed.
13. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the amount to be drawn by the first petitioner who
enjoys the scale of pay of Rs.9,300-34,800 plus GP 4600 is to be
Rs.26,330/-, however, by applying Rule 3(3), the office of the
Accountant General reduced it to the tune of Rs.24,140/-, which
shows that the application of Rule 3(3) was totally a wrong act
done by the authority.
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 11
14. The learned counsel admitted the refund of the
deducted amount and the only issue which remains is non-
compliance of this Court order to change/increase the amount in
pension payment order thereby showing actual scale of pay and
the total emolument enjoyed by the petitioners. The logic of
refund of deducted amount entails that upgraded/prescribed
scale under ACP I&II is entitled by the pensioners in their pension
and as per Rue 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, pension is to be
calculated as 50% of the total emolument.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the Court's order is strictly to be complied with the
rules/orders/notifications as incorporated in the compliance order
dated 19.8.2019 by which the earlier Contempt Case (C) No.67
of 2020 was closed which are Department orders dated
8.11.2007, 15.1.2010 and 18.10.2010 and as such, Rule 3(3) is
very much not there. In fact, the Accountant General has not
treated all the petitioners equally and judiciously in the matter of
either fixation of pay scale or recovery of amount and that there
is unequal calculation of pay or pension among these petitioners
out of which PPO of four persons have not been settled for want
of correct calculation, payment and fixation of rate of pension
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 12
without deduction in their case. Therefore, the respondent
deserves punishment from this Court by way of contempt.
16. We have considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials available on record.
17. The filing of the present contempt petition arose
from the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 25.1.2022
passed in Contempt Case (C) No.67 of 2020, which was filed
alleging the wilful disobedience of the order dated 19.8.2019
passed in W.P.(C) No.636 of 2019, whereby the learned Single
Judge of this Court in the operative portion of the order held as
under:
"In that view of the matter, the present writ
petition is disposed of directing the
petitioners to file a fresh representation
before the respondents No.3 i.e. the
Commissioner of Excise, Government of
Manipur for redressal of their grievances
within a period of one week from today.
Thereafter, the respondent No.3 on receipt of
the representation to be made by the
petitioners shall consider and dispose of the
same by a speaking order and in accordance
with law within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the said representation.
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 13
With the above observations and directions,
the present writ petition stands disposed of."
18. The Contempt Case (C) No.67 of 2020 has been
closed on 25.1.2022 and the order reads thus:
"Heard Ms. L.Sanjeeka Devi, learned counsel
for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Niranjan,
learned G.A. appearing for the respondent
No.1.
The respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit
enclosing an Order dated 30.07.2020 annexed
as Annexure-X/1 and the relevant portion of the
said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
"7. Now, therefore, in compliance of the
Hon'ble High Court of Manipur's order
dated 19.08.2019 in connection with
WP(C) No.636 of 2019 and order dated
25.06.2020 in connection with WP(C)
No.313 of 2020, the Governor of
Manipur is pleased to order that the pay
of the employees of Department of
Excise, Manipur as per the financial up-
gradation granted under Excise
Department's order No. Ex/
22/ACP/2006 dated 08.11.2007,
15.01.2010 and 18.10.2010 and No.
Ex/23/ACP/2006 dated 06.10.2016 and
its Corrigendum dated 18.12.2017 shall
be allowed on the basis of Finance
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 14
Department (Expenditure Section)
letter No.5/12/2007-FD (Excise) dated
11.10.2010."
Considering the Order dated
30.06.2020, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the
respondents have complied with the
Order dated 19.08.2019 passed by this
Court in WP(C) No.636 of 2019.
Accordingly, contempt petition is
closed.
However, liberty is given to the
petitioners, if further aggrieved, to
approach this Court by way of filing an
appropriate petition.
Furnish a copy of this order to learned
counsel for the parties through their
respective emails/WhatsApp."
19. After passing the order dated 25.1.2022, on
31.1.2022, the petitioners sent a legal notice to the respondent
stating that the incumbents who had already retired like the
petitioners during the pendency of the court cases, their
retirement/pensionary benefits have been stalled by virtue of
such non-clearance of fixation in ACP I&II upgradation and
requested to act on the line of compliance order passed in
Contempt Case (C) No.67 of 2020 at the earliest, otherwise, the
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 15
petitioners will initiate criminal contempt against the respondent.
The petitioners have also filed Contempt Case (Cril.) No.1 of
2022 against the respondent herein and when the contempt case
was listed before the First Bench on 27.4.2022, the First Bench
directed the contempt case to be listed on 4.5.2022 before the
learned Single Judge who passed the order dated 25.1.2022 in
Contempt Case No.67 of 2020. When the Contempt Case (Cril.)
No.1 of 2022 was taken up for hearing by the learned Single
Judge on 6.5.2022, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners prayed for withdrawal of the contempt petition with
liberty to file an appropriate application before the appropriate
forum and, accordingly, the Contempt Case (Cril.) No.1 of 2022
was disposed of.
20. The maintainability of the present criminal contempt
case has been questioned by the respondent contending that
initiation of criminal contempt case under Section 15 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the
Constitution of India can only be done with the consent of the
learned Advocate General of the State and, in the case on hand,
no consent has been obtained from the learned Advocate
General and, therefore, the instant contempt case is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 16
21. Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
reads thus:
"Section 15 - Cognizance of criminal
contempt in other cases- (1) In the case of
criminal contempt, other than a contempt
referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court
or the High Court may take action on its own
motion or on a motion made by -
(a). The Advocate-General, or
(b). any other person, with the consent in
writing of the Advocate-General, or
(c). in relation to the High Court for the
Union territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as
the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify in
this behalf, or any other person, with the
consent in writing of such Law Officer.
(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a
subordinate court, the High Court may take
action on a reference made to it by the
subordinate court or on a motion made by the
Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union
territory, by such Law Officer as the Central
Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
(3) Every motion or reference made under
this section shall specify the contempt of
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 17
which the person charged is alleged to be
guilty.
Explanation. In this section, the expression
"Advocate-General" means - Solicitor-
General;
(a). in relation to the Supreme Court, the
Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General;
(b). in relation to the High Court, the
Advocate-General of the State or any of the
States for which the High Court has been
established;
(c). in relation to the Court of a Judicial
Commissioner, such Law Officer as the
Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."
22. Thus, it is clear from the terms in sub-clause (b) of
sub-section 1 of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
that in the case of a criminal contempt other than the contempt
referred to in Section 14 of the Act, the High Court may take
action on its own motion or on the motion made by any other
person with the consent in writing of the learned Advocate
General. Thus, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 stipulates the
procedural requirement for making a motion by any other person,
like the petitioners with the prior consent in writing of the learned
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 18
Advocate General. However, in the instant case, the petitioners
have not obtained any consent form the learned Advocate
General, which fact was also admitted by the petitioners
themselves by stating that their case is deserving. To
substantiate the same, no such material has been produced by
the petitioner. Though the petitioners stated that on 16.5.2022,
they have submitted an application before the learned Advocate
General for according consent, the same has not been pursued
by the petitioners. Further, no proof has been filed by the
petitioners to show that really they have submitted application
dated 16.5.2022 before the learned Advocate General. On the
other hand, the petitioners have filed the instant contempt case
on 18.5.2022 without obtaining consent from the learned
Advocate General.
23. The filing of criminal contempt case by persons like
the petitioners herein without the consent of the learned
Advocate General is not maintainable. The aforesaid view of this
Court is strengthened by the following decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court:
(1) State of Kerala v. M.S.Mani and others,
(2001) 8 SCC 82:
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 19
"4. A perusal of clauses (1) and (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 15 makes it
clear that in the case of criminal
contempt the Supreme Court or the High
Court may take action on its own motion
or on a motion made by the Advocate-
General or a motion of any other person
with the consent in writing of the
Advocate-General. There is no
controversy that the contempt alleged is
within the meaning of criminal contempt
under clause (C) of Section 2 of the Act.
From clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 15 it is manifest that a motion
made by any person other than the
Advocate-General must be with the prior
consent in writing of the Advocate-
General and analogous provision is to
be found in Section 7 of the English
Contempt of Courts Act, 1981.
....
6. The requirement of consent of the
Advocate-General/Attorney-
General/Solicitor-General where any
person other than the said law officers
makes motion in the case of a criminal
contempt in a High Court or Supreme
Court, as the case may be, is not a mere
formality; it has a salutary purpose. The
said law officers being the highest law
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 20
officers at the level of the State/Centre
as also the officers of the courts are
vitally interested in the purity of the
administration of justice and in
preserving the dignity of the courts.
They are expected to examine whether
the averments in the proposed motion of
a criminal contempt are made
vindicating public interest or personal
vendetta and accord or decline consent
postulated in the said provision. Further,
cases found to be vexatious, malicious
or motivated by motion of criminal
contempt in the High Court/Supreme
Court is not accompanied by the written
consent of the aforementioned law
officers, the very purpose of requirement
of prior consent will be frustrated. For a
valid motion compliance with the
requirements of Section 15 of the Act is
mandatory. A motion under Section 15
not in conformity with the provisions of
Section 15 is not maintainable. ....."
(2) Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute,
(2005) 1 SCC 254:
"20. It is well settled that the requirement
of obtaining consent in writing of the
Advocate General for making motion by
any person is mandatory. A motion
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 21
under Section 15 not in conformity with
the requirements of that section is not
maintainable. ....
....
23. In these matters, the question is not
about compliance or non-compliance
with the principles of natural justice by
granting adequate opportunity to the
appellant but is about compliance with
the mandatory requirements of Section
15 of the Act. As already noticed the
procedure of Section 15 is required to be
followed even when petition is filed by a
party under Article 215 of the
Constitution, though in these matters
petitions filed were under Section 15 of
the Act. From the material on record, it
is not possible to accept the contention
of the respondents that the Court had
taken suomotu action. of Course, the
Court had the power and jurisdiction to
initiate contempt proceedings suomtu
and for that purpose consent of the
Advocate General was not necessary.
At the same time, it is also to be borne in
mind that the courts normally take
suomotu action in rare cases. In the
present case, it is evident that the
proceedings before the High Court were
initiated by the respondents by filing
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 22
contempt petitions under Section 15.
The petitions were vigorously pursued
and strenuously argued as private
petitions. In absence of compliance with
the mandatory requirement of Section
15, the petitions were not maintainable.
(3) Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of
Police, Chennai v. ParithiIlamvazhuthi
and another, (2011) 1 SCC 496:
"46. Further, Section 15 of the Act as
well as the Madras High Court
Contempt of Court Rules insist that,
particularly, for initiation of criminal
contempt, consent of the Advocate
General is required. Any division from
the prescribed Rules should not be
accepted or condoned lightly and must
be deemed to be fatal to the
proceedings taken to initiate action for
contempt.
47. In the present case, the above
provisions have not been strictly
adhered to and even the notice issued
by the then Division Bench merely
sought for explanation from the
appellant about the allegations made by
Respondent 1.
...
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 23
49. In view of the discussion and
conclusions, the order of the High Court
convicting the appellant under Section
2(c) of the Act and sentencing him under
Section 12 to undergo simple
imprisonment for seven days is set
aside. The appeal is allowed."
24. Following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to the case on hand, we are of the view that the
petitioners have failed to comply with the mandatory requirement
of obtaining consent from the learned Advocate General before
filing the criminal contempt case. Any petition of criminal
contempt filed by any private person without the consent of the
learned Advocate General will not be maintainable and will be
dismissed on this ground alone.
25. The procedure of Section 15 of the Act is required
to be followed even when the petitioners filed petition under
Article 215 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of
compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 15 of the
Act, the present criminal contempt case is not maintainable in the
eyes of law. That apart, the ingredients for constituting criminal
contempt as defined in sub-clause (c) of Section 2 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are not in existence in the present
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 24
case for constituting criminal contempt against the respondent
herein.
26. As far as the alleged wilful disobedience pleaded by
the petitioners is concerned, the instant contempt petition is
arising out of the order dated 25.1.2022 passed in Contempt
Case (C) No.67 of 2020. As stated supra, while closing the
Contempt Case (C) No.67 of 2020, the learned Single Judge has
given liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court by way of
filing an appropriate petition, if they aggrieved by the order dated
30.07.2020, which means that if really, the petitioners have
aggrieved, they can file appropriate petition and not specifically
contempt petition. In the facts and given circumstances, the
initiation of contempt proceedings is misconceived, inasmuch as
the authorities have taken endeavor to comply with the order
passed in the writ petition and the same cannot be termed as
willful disobedience as alleged by the petitioner. That apart, as
could be seen from the records, the fixation/re-fixation of scale of
pay in terms of relevant pay/revised pay rules and clarification
issued by the State Government thereof, is not within the purview
of the present respondent and the same lies within the domain of
the concerned Department of the State Government, for which
the respondent cannot be penalized.
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
P a g e | 25
27. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the
contempt petition to take action against the respondent under
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 without the
written consent of the learned Advocate General is not
maintainable in law.
28. In the result, Contempt Case (Criminal) No.2 of
2022 is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
Contempt Case(Criminal) No. 2 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 636 of 2019)
