DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. versus VED PRAKASH JOSHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 620 · Decided: 15-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, UIT ARANCHAL AND ORS. 
B 
v. 
VED PRAKASH JOSHI AND ORS. 
JULY 15, 2005 
[ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I-Sections 14 and I 5-Contempt 
jurisdictiOn-Exercise and scope of-Held: Court exercising contempt 
C jurisdiction is to deal with the contumacious conduct of party alleged to 
have committed default in complying w~th the directions-It cannot tr~erse 
beyond the order to test correctness or otherwise of order or give additional 
directions or delete any direction-That w()uld amount to exercise of review 
jurisdiction while dealing with contempt application which is impermissible 
and indefensible. 
D 
Single Judge of High Court issued directions for giving arrears of 
salary to Respondent No.I. On the non-compliance of the. directions; 
respondent no 1 filed contempt application. Appellant contended that no specifac 
directions were issued for giving arrears of salary. However, High Court 
disposed of the contempt petition holding that respondent No.I was entitled to 
E arrears of salary. Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The Court exercising contempt Jurisdiction is primarily 
concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is 
F alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the 
judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or 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 
G take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not 
dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or order. 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. It cannot 
say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot 
fl 
620 
-DIREQ:OROFEDUCATION, UTFARANCHAL v. VED PRAKASH JOSHI [PASA Y AT, J ] 621 
. • test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete A 
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. Hence, the order of the High Court is set 
aside. If the appellant has any grievance with regard to the order that the 
respondent no.I would not be paid salary but would be entitled to the benefit B 
ofincrements,.he may approach the appropriate forum for such remedy as is 
available in law. (623-A-F] 
K.G. Derasari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [2001) 10 SCC 496 
- relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3713 of2005. 
Froin the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.2004 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.C. Application No. 3797 in C.M.W.P.No. 129of1994. 
c 
Avatar Singh Rawat Addi. Advocate General for the State of Uttranchal D 
and. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Appellants. 
Yatish Mohan and E.C. Vidya Sagar for the Respondent. 
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Sandeep Singh and Ms. Niranjana Singh with her 
· for the Respondent for State of U.P. 
The Judgment. ofthe Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted. 
E 
Order passed by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court 
giving certain directions while dealing with application filed under Sections F 
14 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') is 
challenged in this appeal. The foundation of such· application was alleged .. 
non-compliance of the directions given by the learned Single Judge -of the 
High Court in Writ Petition no. 129/84 by order dated 16th September, 1997. G 
By the impugned order learned Single Judge has given certain directions 
while disposing of the Contempt Petition. 
According to the learned counsel for the appellants such directions 
could not have been given while dealing with application for contempt. Such 
exercise of power is not authorized in law. During the hcai-ing of the application H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.-
A by the High Court the respondent no. I (applicant before the High Court) had 
contended that in view of the judgment p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.