Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Prabha Mathur W/O Shri Anil ... vs Smt. Roli Singh on 14 December, 2021
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 305/2019
In
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10435/2009
Suneet Ghildial S/o Late Shri S.C.P. Ghildial, Aged about 57 Years,
Earlier R/o A-60, Gol Market, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan),
at present R/o D-320, Ashiana Greenweed, Near Shooting Range,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Roli Singh, Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Secretariat, Jaipur - 302006
2. Shri Vaibhav Galriya, Secretary, Department of Higher and
Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur-302006
3. Shri Pradeep Kumar Borad, Commissioner, Department of
College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Dr. Radhakrishnan
Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur - 302017
4. Dr. Asha Bagotia, Principal, Rajasthan School of Arts,
Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan), presently Dr. Radhakrishnan
Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur - 302017
5. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government of
Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (A-Group-II) Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
1. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 396/2019
2. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 911/2019
3. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 918/2019
4. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 920/2019
5. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 921/2019
6. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1686/2019
7. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 471/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarthak Rastogi Advocate,
Mr. Prahlad Singh Advocate with Mr.
Gaurav Sharma Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma,
Additional Advocate General assisted
by Ms. Charvi Patni Advocate through
Video Conferencing.
Mr. S.S. Raghav, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat
Advocate.
(2 of 4) [CCP-305/2019]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Judgment/Order
14/12/2021
Heard.
These contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioners,
who alleged willful disobedience of the order passed in the cases
relating to the contempt petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents state that though an
order was passed by this Court, the respondents have taken
remedy available to them under the law by approaching the
Supreme Court and in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.
(s).20198/2019, The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus
Narendra Dave, notices have been issued by the Supreme Court
on 29.07.2019. It is submitted that as the respondents are
awaiting decision of the Supreme Court, the order passed by this
Court have not been complied with.
The reason assigned by the respondents not to comply with
the order of the court is not acceptable in law. In the case of Dr.
H. Phunindre Singh and Others Versus K.K. Sethi and
Another, (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 640, where against
the order of learned Single Judge, an appeal was filed before
Division Bench and contempt petition was also filed. Their
Lordships in the Supreme Court observed as below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, in
the facts of the case, particularly when the order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
was not stayed by the Division Bench, the contempt
petition should have been disposed of on merits instead
of adjourning the same till disposal of the appeal, so
that question of deliberate violation of the subsisting
order of the Court is considered and enforceability of
the Court's order is not permitted to be diluted. In the
facts of the case, we feel that the contempt petition
(3 of 4) [CCP-305/2019]
should be disposed of within a period of three months
from the date of the communication of this order and
we order accordingly. It is further directed that before
disposal of the contempt petition, the pending appeal
should not be taken up for hearing. The appeal is
accordingly disposed of."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the
order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of
Customs, Bombay Versus Krishna Sales (P) LTD, 1994
Supp. (3) Supreme Court Cases 73, wherein, their Lordships in
the Supreme Court held that mere filing of appeal does not
operate a stay on the order appealed against. It was held as
below:-
"According to the said para 4, the goods will not be
released even where the party succeeds in cases where
the Customs authorities decide to go in appeal before
the Tribunal or the Supreme Court. They will consider
the issuance of such certificate only after the decision
of the Tribunal or the Supreme Court, as the case may
be. The learned counsel for the respondent
characterises the said direction as arbitrary and
contrary to law. We see the force in his submission. If
the authorities are of the opinion that the goods ought
not to be released pending the appeal, the
straightforward course for them is to obtain an order of
stay or other appropriate direction from the Tribunal or
the Supreme Court, as the case may be. Without
obtaining such an order they cannot refuse to
implement the order under appeal. As is well-known,
mere filing of the appeal does not operate as a stay or
suspension of the order appealed against. Moreover,
such detention is likely to create several complications
relating to the demurrage charges besides the possible
deterioration of the machinery and goods. We hope and
trust that the Collector of Customs, Bombay shall
appropriately revise the said public notice in the light of
the observations made herein. If he does not do so,
there is a likelihood of the Customs authorities being
themselves made liable for demurrage charges in
appropriate cases."
(4 of 4) [CCP-305/2019]
In view of the above enunciation of legal position by their
Lordships in the Supreme Court, mere filing of SLP cannot be
taken as an excuse for not implementing the order of the Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not place before
this Court any order to say that the effect, operation and
execution of the order passed by this Court has been stayed or
kept in abeyance or any other order passed.
In view of the above, we are of the view that the
respondents are duty bound to comply with the direction of the
Court.
The order of this Court should remove doubt/confusion, if
any, in the mind of the respondents with regards to
implementation of the order passed by us.
Let the order of this Court be complied with forthwith.
These contempt petitions are disposed off with liberty to
revive in case the respondents authority do not comply with the
order and issue necessary directions in favour of the petitioners
within a period of 60 days from today.
Rule is discharged.
A copy of this order be placed on record of each connected
petitions.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
Sanjay Kumawat-60-67
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
