LexPARENTS ASSOCIATION OF STUDENTS versus M.A. KHAN AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 735 IA. PARENTS ASSOCIATION OF STUDENTS A II. ~ M.A. KHAN AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 7317 of 2008) DECEMBER 16, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.19 - Appeal under- \; Maintainability of, vis-a-vis maintainability of Special Appeal under Letters Patent of High Court - Order of High Court in c writ petition filed by appellant against State of U.P.- Contempt petition alleging that by issuance of a subsequent G. 0., the ~ State committed contempt of High Court - Respondent No. 1, · who purportedly derived benefit from the G. 0., also impleaded as contemnor, even though he was not a party in the writ D petition of appellant - Interim order passed by Single Judge of High Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction staying operation of the disputed G. 0.- Special appeal under Letters Patent of High Court -Dispute over maintainability of the special appeal - Division Bench of High Court held the E special appeal maintainable - On appeal, held: No need to decide the larger question, namely, maintainability of appeal under s.19 of CoQtempt of Courts Act vis-a-vis maintainability of Special Appeal vnder Letters Patent of High Court, since matter already referred to larger Bench - However, ordinarily, i= if a person was not party to a /is and no direction was issued -.t against him, a contempt petition against him would not lie - Single Judge of High Court, without any application of mind in this behalf, not only issued notice but also passed interim order which vitally affected respondent' no. 1 - Having regard G to subsequent events, particularly pendency of a writ petition before High Court in a related issue, it would not be fair to allow the interim order passed by Single Judge of High Court to ....... continue; assuming that the Division Bench had no jurisdiction 735 H 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R. A to entertain appeal - Orders of both Single Judge and Division Bench accordingly quashed - Single Judge directed to consider the merit of contempt matter: only after disposal of the said writ petition pending before High Court - Education - Professional education - Fixation of fee - Letters Patent. B Respondent No.1 runs a Medical College while respondent No.2 is Secretary, Medical Education, Government of U.P. Appellant, an Association of Parents whose wards had taken admission in different professional colleges including medical colleges, filed C writ petition for a direction upon the State of U.P. to regulate professional education so far as it, inter alia, relates to fixation of fee. A Single Judge of the High Court having regard to the decision of a 11 Judge Bench of this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case noticed the averment o made on behalf of respondent No.2 that the "authorities are bound to act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and the various Government Orders" and accordingly while disposing of the writ petition directed the authorities "to ensure and stick on the fair statement E made on behalf of the respondents". Clarification as regards interpretation of various directions/ observations made in T.M.A. Pai Foundation fell for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Islamic Academy of Education. In P.A. lnamdar's F case direction to constitute various Committees ·inter alia to determine the .quantum of fees payable· by the students for taking admission as also tuition and other fees to co.ntinue their studies in professional colleges, was reiterated. G Subsequently, the State Government issued a Government order dated 7th September, 2006 permitting the Medical College run by Respondent No.1 to collect certain amount of fees for admission, which amount the said College collected from its students. At this stage a H contempt petition was filed by the appellant against the 'ti )( -1 PARENTS ASSOCIATION OF STUDENTS v. M.A. KHAN 737 ,, ANDANR. ~ respondents contending that by issuance of the said A ._.., G.O. dated 7th September, 2006 the State had committed contempt of Court. Respondent No.1 was also impleaded as contemnor even though he was not a party to the earlier writ petition. A Single Judge of the High Court issued notices to B respondents for Contempt of Court and passed an interim order staying operation of the disputed '-1- Government order dated 7th September, 2006. An intra court appeal by way
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.