LexDINESHAN K.K. versus R.K. SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 667 DINESHAN K.K. V. R.K. SINGH & ANR. (Contempt Petition (C) No. 422 of 2012) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2008. MARCH 11, 2014 [H.L. DATTU AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] A B Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s. 12; Constitution of India, C 1950: Article 129 - Contempt jurisdiction - High Court while disposing of writ petition filed by petitioner had issued directions to the Union of India and its officer to re-designate the petitioner from rank of Hawaldar to Warrant Officer as recommended by Ministry of Home affairs - Appeal by UOI- o respondent against the said directions dismissed by Supreme Court - Non-compliance with the directions issued by High Court as well as by Supreme Court in spite of lapse of considerable period - Contempt petition filed u/Article 129 of the Constitution rlw s.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 E against respondent officers - Maintainability of - Held: The judgment passed by High Court merged with that of Supreme Court when the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Supreme Court - Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal and, therefore, it was the direction passed by High F Court which in fact was allegedly disobeyed by respondents! contemnors - In the interest of justice and to lessen the burden of Supreme Court in the current scenario, High Court requested to look into the grievance of the petitioner, if a petition is filed before them inter alia bringing to their notice and knowledge that their orders and directions have been G disobeyed - This exercise would be beneficial to the parties because they were before the High Court in the writ petition wherein the directions were issued - The petitioner is directed to file an appropriate contempt petition before High Court for 667 H 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A alleged disobedience of the orders and directions issued by the High Court. B c Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. S.B.I. Overseas Branch, Bombay 2006 (6) SCC 385 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2006 (6) sec 385 referred to Para 8 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 422 of 2012. IN Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008. Guru Krishna Kumar, Hiren Dasan, Avinash Singh, Sarla Chandra for the Petitioner. D Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, R. Balasubramanium, Supriya Jain, B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER E 1. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner inter alia requesting this Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for alleged disobedience of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008, dated 04.01.2008. F 2. The High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein had issued certain directions to the Union of India and its officer to re-designate the petitioner from the rank of Hawaldar (Radio Mechanic) to Warrant Officer as recommended by the Ministry of Home affairs and also to G extend the pay-scales as given to the rank counter parts in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Border Security Force (BSF). 3. Being aggrieved by the order and directions issued by the High Court, the Union of India and Anr. through their H respective officer(s) had filed Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008 DINESHAN K.K. v. R.K. SINGH & ANR. 669 before this Court inter alia questioning the judgment and order A passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition No. 497 of 2001, dated 11.02.2005. The alleged contemnors herein Mr. R.K. Singh, Secretary, Government of India and Lt. General Ranvir Singh, Director General of Assam, Rifles were the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively in the aforesaid appeal. 8 4. This Court has dismissed the appeal and held as under: "On a conspectus of the factual scenario noted above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned directions given by the High Court, warranting interference. There is no c merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with costs." 5. The petitioner before us, being of the view that since the contemnors/respondents herein have not complied with the 0 orders and directions issued by the High Court as well as by this Court in spite of lapse of considerable period of time from the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court and hence willfully disobeyed the judgment and order of this Court, has filed this contempt petition under Article 129 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.