STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus RAJENDRA SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 24-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAJENDRA SINGH AND ANR. 
AUGUST 24, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.) 
B 
Contempt of Court : 
Application for contempt-Contempt jurisdiction-Exercise of-Held: 
While dealing with such application Court is concerned whether earlier C 
decision which has attained finality has been complied with or not-It 
cannot traverse beyond the order-It is impermissible to examine the 
rightness or wrongness of the order or to give additional direction or delete 
any direction which would amount to exercise of review jurisdiction-If the 
party is aggrieved by the order, it can either approach the Court that D 
passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of Appellate Court. 
An order was passed in compliance with the direction of High 
Court. The same was not complied with. Respondent filed an application 
for initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant-State. 
Single Judge of High Court held that there was violation of the Court's E 
order and directed re-consideration of the order. Hence the present 
ap'peal. 
Appellant-State contended that there was no violation of High 
Court's order and as such the finding recorded and the direction for F 
re-consideration are not sustainable in law. 
Respondent contended that High Court was justified in holding 
that there was violation of the Court's order but should not have 
directed for re-consideration instead punished the contemnor. 
G 
Partly allowing the appelll, the Court. 
HELD : I.I. While dealing with an application for contempt, the 
Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier 
decision, which has received its finality, had been complied with or not. H 
735 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A The Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which 
is alleged. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in 
contempt proceedings. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the 
order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would 
be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for 
B initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible 
and indefensible. (739-A-B] 
1.2. In a given case, even if ultimately the interim order is vacated 
or relief in the main proceeding is not granted to a party, the other 
side cannot take that as a ground for dis-obedience of any interim 
C order passed by the Court. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. 
Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for 
contempt. 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 to the Court 
D that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. 
(739-C; 738-H; 739-A; 738-G-H] 
1.3. In the instant case, after having arrived at a conclusion that 
there was violation of the Court's order, the Court should have focused 
E its attention to the issue as to what further was done consequentially. 
Instead it went on to give further directions for re-consideration in the 
line of views eApressed by it which is clearly impermissible. In some 
cases Court may grant opportunity to the contemnors to purge the 
contempt. This is not a case of that nature. In fact Single Judge has 
held on merits that the decision of the Board was proper and as such 
F directed reconsideration. Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside 
and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. (739-C-E] 
K.G. Derasari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2001] 10 SCC 
496; T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan, (1995] 5 SCC 619 and Mohd. 
G Iqbal Khandav v. Abdul Majid Rather, AIR (1994) SC 2252, referred to. 
Niaz Mohammad and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1994] 6 
sec 352, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCITION : Civil Appeal No. 6356 of 
H 2000. 
.
STATE v. RAJENDRA SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 
737 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.2000 of the Patna High A 
Court in M.J.C. No. 1739 of 1999. 
B.B. Singh for the Appellant. 
Raju Ramachandran, Zaiki Ahmed Khan and Irshad Ahmed for the B 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J, : The State of Bihar is in appeal against the C 
order of the learned Single Judge who by the same held that there was 
violation of the Court's order. Without indicating as to what was the 
consequence of such violation, it directed re-cons

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