Uttarakhand High Court
Through: Shri Prabhat Bohra vs Nitesh Kumar Jha on 26 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Civil Contempt Petition No. 562 of 2019
Ravindra Singh Nayal. ................Petitioner.
Through: Shri Prabhat Bohra, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
-Versus-
Nitesh Kumar Jha. .........Respondent.
Through: Shri J.S. Bisht, learned Standing
Counsel for the State / respondent.
Date of Hearing and Order : 26.08.2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
(Upon hearing of learned counsel for the parties, the Court has passed
the following Orders):
1. This petition has been filed for alleged non compliance of
order dated 10.09.2018 passed in Writ Petition (SB) No. 504 of
2016. The operative portion of the order 10.09.2018 reads as
under:
"In sequel to the directions issued by this Court on
05.09.2018, the State of Uttarakhand has now sent the
recommendations to the Union Public Service Commission,
vide letter dated 08.09.2018, after re-determining the
seniority of the petitioner.
Now, there shall be a direction to the Union Public
Service Commission to do the needful after receipt of the
letter dated 08.09.2018 within four weeks from today."
2. Thereafter, a contempt petition is filed. The State of
Uttarakhand has filed a response affidavit and submitted that it
has already complied the order passed by this Court and the State
of Uttarakhand has written a letter to the Principal Secretary,
Home, Uttar Pradesh, for complying with the order, which relates
to the service of the petitioner rendered in State of Uttar Pradesh
before creation of State of Uttarakhand.
3. Admittedly, the Principal Secretary, Home, State of Uttar
Pradesh was not a party to the writ petition. The order was
passed only against State of Uttarakhand represented by
Principal Secretary, Home, State of Uttarakhand. Petitioner has
now filed an application for impleading the Principal Secretary,
Home, State of Uttar Pradesh, for non compliance of the order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sita Ram Vs.
Balbir @ Bali (2017) 2 SCC 456 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that in case where the plaintiff had obtained
injunction against certain defendants and the assets of one such
defendant against whom the injunction was granted, were held
by a bank. The bank was served with a copy of the injunction but
the defendant concerned had not yet been served. While
considering the question whether any disposal of assets
belonging to the defendant by the bank would make it liable for
committing contempt of court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
further held that consequences which ensue when there are acts
or omissions which are contrary to the terms of injunction: (i) the
person against whom the order is made will be liable for
contempt of court if he acts in breach of the order after having
notice of it; (ii) a third party will also be liable if he knowingly
assists in the breach, that is to say if knowing the terms of the
injunction he wilfully assists the person to whom it was directed
to disobey. This will be so whether or not the person enjoined has
had notice of the injunction.
5. However, the facts of the case reported are different. In this
petition, proposed contemnor sought to be added, as party to the
contempt petition, who was neither a party in the writ petition
nor any direction was given to him. It is also not the case of the
petitioner that he is actively aiding, abetting or assisting the
Principal Secretary, Home, State of Uttarakhand to disobey the
order. Hence, this Court finds that both contempt petition and
impleadment application are devoid of merits. In that view of the
matter, the contempt petition is dropped. However, it is apparent
from the record that earlier in the writ petition, the petitioner has
not made proper party. In that view of the matter, liberty is
granted to the petitioner to agitate his grievance afresh, by filing
fresh writ petition.
6. With such observations, contempt petition is closed. All
the pending applications stand disposed of.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J)
SKS
