KEDAR SINGH KUSHWAHA versus DHANIRAM & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 364 
A 
KEDAR SINGH KUSHWAHA 
~ .. 
v. 
DHANIRAM & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5096 of 2009) 
B 
AUGUST 4, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court - High Court in a contempt petition 
holding that Specified Officer had no jurisdiction to direct re-
;.. 
c counting of votes in panchayat elections - High Court 
directing the Officer to decide election petition within specified 
time and also to decide preliminary issues - Officer neither 
deciding the case within given time, nor deciding the 
preliminary issues and also directing recounting - Contempt 
D Petition - Non-appearance of contemnor before Court -
Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court finding 
~ 
him guilty of contempt - On appeal, held : Facts of the case 
shows that the contemnor was guilty of contempt of court. 
E 
In the election of Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, 
Second respondent was declared elected. First 
respondent filed an application seeking setting aside of 
his election. Specified Officer directed re-counting of the 
votes and dismissed the application relying on the re-
• ' 
F 
counting. 
First respondent filed writ petition challenging the 
order. He took the plea that Specified Officer had no 
jurisdiction to direct re-counting and should have 
decided the case on the basis of available evidence on 
G record. High Court allowed the writ petition and remitted 
the matter to the Officer .concerned to be decided within 
). 
~ 
specified time. High Court also directed the officer to 
decide the preliminary issues. Appellant, who was the 
t, 
Specified Officer at the relevant time again directed re-
H 
364 
KEDAR SINGH KUSHWAHA v. DHANIRAM & ANR. 365 
counting. First respondent filed contempt petition on the 
A 
'! 
ground that the order of the appellant was in violation of 
the order of the High Court. Despite direction of High 
Court, appellant did not appear before the Court and 
hence bailable warrants were issued against him. High 
Court found him guilty of willful disobedience. Intra-court B 
appeal was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
... 
HELD: 1. The appellant was the Specified Officer and 
in the. said capacity was authorized to determine the c 
election petition filed by the first respondent. The Election 
Petition filed by him was dismissed only on the basis of 
ah otder of recounting passed by the Specified Officer in 
respect whereof allegedly no objection was raised. The 
High Court, however, in its order dated 24.7.1996, in clear D 
.} 
terms, pointed out that the prescribed authority has no 
jurisdiction in that behalf even with the consent of the 
' 
parties. [Para 9] [369-C-D] 
2. The order of the High Court was not complied with 
as the election petition was not disposed of within the 
E 
period specified therefor by the High Court. Preliminary 
• 
... 
objections of the parties had not been determined. From 
a perusal of the order passed by the appellant, it appears 
that the ballot boxes were opened and a direction for 
F 
recounting of the ballot papers was made. Why an order 
of recounting was passed despite the clear finding of the 
High Court has not been explained. The effect of the 
decision which was relied upon by the High Court was 
' 
also not taken into consideration. The premise on which G. 
the High Court passed its judgment was neither noticed 
• 1 
nor considered. [Paras 1 O] [370-C-G] 
3. The appellant cannot take the plea that he did not 
understand the effect and purport of the order. T~e High 
H 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A Court, has rightly arrived at a finding that as a responsible 
.. 
and high ranking officer, the said plea was not available 
to him. He, therefore, could not have committed the same 
error as was done by his predecessor in office. [Para 11] 
[371-A-B] 
B 
4. Even during the proceedings before the High 
Court, appellant's conduct was not above board. Why he 
could not appear before the High Court at the earliest 
possible opportunity has not been properly explained. In 
c terms of the Rules framed by the High Court under the 
Contempt of Courts Act, the appellant has rightly been 
called upon to appear. He could not have ignored the 
same on the premise that the Collector did not give him 
permission therefor. Even otherwise, no order refusing 
D such permission by the Collector has been brought on 
record. [Para 11] [371-8-D] 
<. 
~
P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and 

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