LexPRITHAWI NATH RAM versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PRITHA WI NA TH RAM v. ST ATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. AUGUST 24, 2004 B [ARJJIT PASAYAT AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : Ss. 11 and 15--Contempt Jurisdiction-Scope of-Non-compliance C of order of High Court-Aggrieved party filing application for initiating contempt proceedings-Court examining correctness of the order and declining to take action for contempt-Held, the court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot traverse beyond the order the non-compliance of which is alleged-It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order-Cunstitution D of India, 1950-Article 215-Practice and Procedure. ·' In an application for initiating contempt proceedings for non- compliance of an order of the High Court, a single Judge proceeded to examine the correctness of the said order and held that the directions E given therein could not have been given and, therefore, there was no scope for taking any action for contempt. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to the High F Court, the Court. G HELD : 1.1. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is primarily concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality has been complied with or not and whether conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order, is contumacious. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which has not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. The Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is H alleged. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give 740 PRITHAWI NATH RAM v. STATE 741 additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising A review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. [742-G-H; 743-A-C; 744-C-D) KG. Derasari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [2001) IO SCC 496 and Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather, AIR (1994) SC B 2252, relied on. TR. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan, (1995] 5 SCC 619, referred to. Niaz Mohammad and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1994] 6 sec 352, held inapplicable. c 1.2. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order, which in its opinion is wrong or against rules, or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. At D the same time, in a given case, even if ultimately the interim order is vacated or relief in the main proceeding is not granted to a party, that cannot be taken as a ground for dis-obedience of any interim order passed by the Court. (744-A-B, E-F) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5024 of E 2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.2000 of the Patna High Court in M.J.C. No. 262 of 1999. WITH I.A. Nos. I 0-11 of 2004 Raju Ramachandran, Zaiki Ahmed Khan and Irshad Ahmad for the Appellant. B.B. Singh for the Respondent. Anil Kumar Jha for State of Jharkhand. Lakshmi Raman Singh for Respondent. Anurag Sharma and Navin Prakash for B.P.S.C. F G H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. : Appellant filed an application under Sections 11 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 B 'Constitution'). The foundation of such application was alleged non- compliance of the directions given by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in CWJC 1120 of 1998 by order dated 30.3.1999. A learned Single Judge of the said High Court, while dealing with C the application for initiation of contempt proceedings, has passed the impugned judgment holding that it would not be proper to take any action for contempt. Though learned Single Judge noticed that the scope of consideration while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings was confined to the question whether there was compliance with the order or not, yet proceeded to examine the correctness of the order D and called upon the parties to satisfy him that the direction of the kind contained in the order dated 30
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.