Contempt proceedings closed where prescribed fresh applications were not filed, with liberty to reapply.

The petitioner-college initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the High Court’s earlier order dated 16 August 2019 concerning inspection and grant of affiliation by Magadh University, and reconsideration of its claim by the Bihar School Examination Board (“BSEB”) based on documents submitted on 29 January 2019.

The University stated that the College had not submitted a fresh application in the prescribed format along with the requisite documents and inspection fee; instead, its Principal had merely addressed a letter dated 27 August 2019 to the Registrar.

The BSEB stated that it had reconsidered and rejected the petitioner’s claim through letter dated 19 May 2023, while permitting the institution to submit a fresh application in the appropriate format along with affiliation and inspection fees for fresh consideration.

The petitioner had not availed of that liberty.

Whether the petitioner had complied with the High Court’s order dated 16 August 2019 by submitting a valid fresh application to the University for consideration of affiliation?

Whether the University and the BSEB had failed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court so as to warrant continuation of the contempt proceedings?

Whether the petitioner could be granted liberty to pursue fresh applications before the University and the BSEB in accordance with the prescribed procedure?

The Court applied the procedural principle that compliance with a judicial direction concerning affiliation requires submission of a fresh application in the prescribed format, accompanied by the requisite documents and applicable affiliation or inspection fee.

In contempt jurisdiction, the Court examined whether its earlier directions had been complied with and whether any continuing disobedience justified continuation of the proceeding.

The Court also relied on the principle that where an authority has reconsidered a claim and provided an available procedural remedy or liberty to submit a fresh application, the aggrieved party must avail that remedy before seeking further contempt relief.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioner had not submitted the fresh, prescribed-format application required for University consideration; the letter dated 27 August 2019 was treated as casual and procedurally non-compliant.

Accordingly, there was no basis to hold that the University had disobeyed the earlier order.

As regards the BSEB, the Court noted that the Board had reconsidered the claim and communicated its rejection by letter dated 19 May 2023, while expressly allowing the petitioner to submit a fresh application with the necessary fee and documents.

Since the petitioner had not availed that opportunity, the Court found no continuing non-compliance requiring the contempt proceeding to remain pending.

The contempt proceeding was therefore closed.

However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application before the University in accordance with the order dated 16 August 2019 and to take appropriate steps pursuant to the BSEB Director (Academic)’s letter dated 19 May 2023.