A Miscellaneous Application for recall or review is not maintainable against an order dismissing contempt proceedings on merits.

The applicant filed a Contempt Petition (CP No. 64/2024) alleging non-compliance with a common order dated 19.05.2021 passed in OA 536/2021.

During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondents issued a compliance order on 08.10.2024.

Consequently, the Tribunal dropped the CP on 06.12.2024, holding that the intentional violation of the court's order ceased to exist once a fresh order was passed.

The applicant subsequently filed the present Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 21/2025) seeking to recall or modify the order dated 06.12.2024 that dropped the contempt proceedings.

The respondents challenged the maintainability of this MA.

1. Whether a Miscellaneous Application to recall or modify a final order passed in a contempt proceeding is maintainable under the law.

The power of review/recall is a creation of statute and cannot be exercised in the absence of express legal provision.

Final proceedings cannot be reopened via Miscellaneous Applications if they provide a fresh cause of action (Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. 2024 INSC 958).

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not contain provisions for review, and thus recall applications against orders decided on merits are not maintainable (Satyapal Singh v. I.M.G. Khan, OA No. 1111/2000).

Once a compliance order is passed, contempt proceedings cannot continue even if the correctness of the compliance order is challenged (J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar 1996 SCC (L) 1422).

The Tribunal analyzed whether it possessed the jurisdiction to entertain an MA to recall an order that had already terminated the contempt proceedings on merits.

The Bench observed that since the respondents had issued an order in purported compliance with the original directions, the "willful disobedience" required for contempt had vanished.

Applying the ratio in Ajay Kumar Jain, the Tribunal reasoned that allowing a recall via a Miscellaneous Application would lead to "confusion and chaos" and undermine the finality of proceedings.

The court emphasized that because the Contempt of Courts Act lacks an express provision for review, and the previous order dated 06.12.2024 was a decision on merits (dropping the case based on compliance), the Tribunal was functus officio.

When the applicant's counsel failed to provide a specific statutory provision under which the MA was maintainable, the court concluded the application was legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal directly answered the issue by stating it was not convinced of the maintainability of the MA in the given form.

Accordingly, MA No. 260/00021 of 2025 was dismissed.