NIAZ MOHAMMAD AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 720 · Decided: 20-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
.. 
NIAZ MOHAMMAD AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA.AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJI. KULDIP SINGH 
AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court Acl 197.1 : 
C 
Section 2(b )-Civil contempt--Wi/fu/ disobedience a prereq-
uisite-Compelling circumstances under which contemner unable to comply 
with the order-Held: Does not amount to contempt 
· · 
· These petitions were filed for initiating contempt proceedings 
against / the respondents for non-payment of arrears or salary to the 
D Petitlo,;ers-lnstructors in the Adult and Non-formal Education Scheme 
under the Education Department or Haryana, on par with squad teachers 
as directed by the Court earlier. On the contempt petitions directions were 
issned to the Union oflndia and the State of Haryana to make joint efforts 
and to use the resource for paying the amount due to the teachers within 
E two months. The Union oflndia filed an application for modifying the said 
order since the earlier direction was Issued to State of Haryana which bas 
to comply with it and not the Union of India. This Court permitted the 
Union of India to convert the said application into a Review petition. 
F 
G 
On behalf or the State of Haryana, It was contended that the total 
financial liability would be in the order of Rs. 28 crores which it was not 
aware. when the direction was Issued, and unless the Union of India 
contributes and bears a part or the burden, It would not .be possible to 
comply with the said direction. 
Dismissing the petitions, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Court while considering the issue as to whether the 
alleged contemner should be punished for not having complied and 
carried out the direction of the Court, has to take into consideration all 
facts and circumstances or a particular ease. That is why the framers of 
H the Act while defining 'civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful 
720 
.• 
N.MOHAMMADv. STATE 
721 
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other A 
process of a court. Before a contemner is punished for non-compliance of 
the direction of a court, the court must not only be satisfied about the 
disobedience of any judgment decree, direction or writ but should also be 
satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. If from the 
circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the Court, the B 
Court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such 
disobedience is the result of some compelling Circumstances under which 
it was not possible for the contemner to comply with the order, the Court 
may not punish the alleged contemner. (726-G, H, 727-A, C, D] 
Dushyant Soma/ v. Sushma Somal AIR (1981) SC 1026, relied on. 
C 
2. In the present case, there is no specific direction in the judgment 
of this Court dated 2.6.1988 in the connected Writ Petition, to pay any 
particular amount to the Instructors. This Court has simply decided the 
question as to whether they are entitled to the scale of Pay which has been 
given to Squad Teachers. Having decided that question in favour of the D 
Instructors, this Court directed that arrears be paid to be Instructors 
from their respective dates of appointments, treating them at par with the 
Squad Teachers. That the said direction will involve payment of about 28 
crore of rupees was neither known to the Court not to the parties to that 
proceeding. As such, this Court is now entitled to examine the question as E 
to whether in the special facts and circumstances of the present case, the 
respondents, should be punished for having committed contempt of this 
Court. (727-D to F] 
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993] 1 SCC 539, relied 
on. 
3. There is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in 
complying the direction given by this Court in the said judgment. It cannot 
F 
be disputed that when the aforesaid direction was given, this Court was not 
conscious that the direction had created a liability for payment of about 28 G 
crores of rupees, as arrears to the Iostructiors in the Adult and Non-formal 
Education Scheme· under the Education Department in the State of 
Haryana. Out of that amount about 20 crores of rupees have already been 
disbursed for different periods to the Instructors. In this background, it is 
not possible to hold that respondents have committed contempt of this 
Court for which they ought to be punished by this Court. (728-E, F] 
H 
7.22 
SUPREME COURT REPOR

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