LexNOOR SABA versus ANOOP MISHRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 679 NOOR SABA A v. ANOOP MISHRA & ANR. CONTEMPT PETITION N0.3 OF 2012 IN CONTEMPT PETITION N0.6 & 7 OF 2009 B IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 503 of 2007 SEPTEMBER 2, 2013. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI C AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Contempt of court: Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of Court's 0 order - Held: The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and an adjudication of the liability of the alleged contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally made on admitted and undisputed facts - In the instant case, the respondents have filed affidavits stating that E the order of the Court has been complied with and the revised family pension as due to the petitioner is being regularly paid to her and arrears have also been deposited in her bank account - Further, the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to the last pay drawn by her husband is a disputed question of fact - Accordingly, the Court holds that no case for omission of any contempt of its order is made out. F The petitioner's husband passed away on 5.4.1980 while he was holding the post of Headmaster in the Government Public School. With regard to her claim for G revised family pension, she ultimately filed Writ Petition (C) No. 50312007, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court, on 29.7.2008 with a direction that the family pension of the petitioner should be determined in terms 679 H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A of Government Order dated 24.2.1989 and other orders issued from time to time revising the family pension. The petitioner subsequently filed Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 6 and 7 of 2009 alleging that the directions issued by the Court on 29.7.2008 were not implemented and certain B forged and fabricated documents were placed by the official respondents before the Court. The Court by order dated 1.9.2010 directed the Accountant General, U.P. to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Court on 29.7.2008 and determine the c amount payable to her and report to the Court. The petitioner filed Contempt Petition (C) No. 3 of 2012 alleging that the directions dated 1.9.2010 were also not complied with. Since the order dated 1.9.2010 passed in Contempt D Petitions Nos. 6 and 7 of 2009 was the subject matter of Contempt Petition No. 3/2012, the Court closed Contempt Petitions Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009. Dismissing the contempt petition, the Court E HELD: 1.1. To hold the respondents or anyone of them liable, a conclusion has to be arrived at that they have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and an adjudication of the liability of the alleged F contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally made on admitted and undisputed facts. [para 12] [687- B-C] 1.2. In the instant case, respondent No. 1, namely, the G Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed an affidavit stating that revised pension at the rate of Rs. 3058/- per month is being paid to the petitioner on a regular basis; that the amount of pension has been calculated on the basis of Rs. 620/- as the last pay drawn H by the petitioner's husband and that the difference in NOOR SABA v. ANOOP MISHRA & ANR. 681 pension and the arrears accruing on account of revision A of pension following the 6th Pay Commission Report has also been deposited in her bank account. Respondent No. 2 namely, the Accountant General, U.P. has also filed an affidavit categorically stating that the order dated 1.9.2010 passed by this Court has been complied with by B him, and there is no apparent error in the calculation with regard to the pensionary entitlements of the petitioner. The dispute raised by the petitioner at this stage with regard to the last pay drawn by her husband is a disputed question of fact. Thus, not only there has been a shift in c the stand of the petitioner with regard to the basic facts on which commission of contempt has been alleged, even the said new/altered facts do not permit an adjudication in consonance with the established principles of exercise of contempt jurisdiction so as to 0 enable the Court to come to a conclusion that any of the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 1.9.2010. This Court, accordingly, holds that no case of commission of any contempt of this Court's order
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.