Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5024 of 2000
PETITIONER:
Prithawi Nath Ram
RESPONDENT:
State of Jharkhand and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/08/2004
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
WITH
IA NOS. 10-11 OF 2004
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
Appellant filed an application under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the ’Act’) read with
Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ’Constitution’).
The foundation of such application was alleged non-compliance of the
directions given by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in CWJC
1120 of 1998 by order dated 30.3.1999.
A learned Single Judge of the said High Court, while dealing with the
application for initiation of contempt proceedings, has passed the impugned
judgment holding that it would not be proper to take any action for
contempt. Though learned Single Judge noticed that the scope of
consideration while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt
proceedings was confined to the question whether there was compliance
with the order or not, yet proceeded to examine the correctness of the order
and called upon the parties to satisfy him that the direction of the kind
contained in the order dated 30.3.1999 could be issued. After an indepth
analysis, he came to hold that the directions could not have been given and
therefore there was no scope for taking any action for contempt.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single
Judge has not kept the correct parameters of law in view while dealing with
the application for contempt. In essence he has sat in judgment over the
decision rendered by another learned Single Judge. It was not open in the
contempt proceedings to examine whether the order, non-implementation of
which was being urged, is valid or not. That is beyond the scope of
consideration.
In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that there can be
no straight jacket formula which can be applied in such matters. If the order
was not capable of being implemented, certainly it was open to the learned
Single Judge dealing with the application for initiation of contempt
proceedings to consider whether the order was legal or not.
While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really
concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received
its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a
Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been
assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier
decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari and Anr. V. Union of
India and Ors. (2001 (10) SCC 496). 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 or order. If there was no ambiguity or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
indefiniteness in the order, it is for the concerned party 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. Though strong reliance was placed by learned counsel
for the State of Bihar on a three-Judge Bench decision in Niaz Mohammad
and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1994 (6) SCC 352), we find that the
same has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the
question arose about the impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand
of the State, the least it could have done was to assail correctness of the
judgment before the higher Court. State took diametrically opposite stands
before this Court. One was that there was no specific direction to do
anything in particular and, second was what was required to be done has
been done. If what was to be done has been done, it cannot certainly be said
that there was impossibility to carry out the orders. In any event, the High
Court has not recorded a finding that the direction given earlier was
impossible to be carried out or that the direction given has been complied
with.
On the question of impossibility to carry out the direction, the views
expressed in T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan (1995 (5) SCC 619) need to
be noted. It was held that when the claim inter se had been adjudicated and
had attained finality, it is not open to the respondent to go behind the orders
and truncate the effect thereof by hovering over the rules to get round the
result, to legitimize legal alibi to circumvent the order passed by a Court.
In Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather (AIR 1994 SC 2252),
it was held that if a party is aggrieved by the order, he should take prompt
steps to invoke appellate proceedings and cannot ignore the order and plead
about the difficulties of implementation at the time contempt proceedings
are initiated.
If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion
is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor
feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order
or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the
order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. 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
correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete
any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing
with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would
be impermissible and indefensible. In that view of the matter, the order of
the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.
It shall deal with the application in its proper perspective in accordance with
law afresh. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
regarding acceptability or otherwise of the application for initiation of
contempt proceedings.
In a given case, even if ultimately the interim order is vacated or relief
in the main proceeding is not granted to a party, the other side cannot take
that as a ground for dis-obedience of any interim order passed by the Court.
It is to be noted that after re-organisation of States, the dispute
presently pertains to the State of Jharkhand, which has been substituted in
place of original respondent, the State of Bihar.
Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.