STATE OF J & K versus MOHD. YAQOOB KHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 26-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF J & K 
v. 
MOHD. YAQOOB KHAN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 26,1992 . 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, S.MOHAN AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Appeal against order made in 
a contempt proceeding-Disposal of contempt proceeding while the stay peti-
A 
B 
tion and the writ petition pending-Legality oHnitial ex-parte stay order C 
whether gets confirmed by subsequent orders passed in contempt proceed-
ing-Direction to High Court. 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Bections 11,T4,19-Disposal of con-
tempt proceedings, while stay petition and writ petition· pending-Legality 
of-Initial ex-parte stay order whether gets confirmed by subsequent orders D 
passed in contempt proceeding-Direction to High Court. 
Respondent No.1 in the appeal, filed a writ petition under Article 226 
of the Constitution for the implementation of a decree which was modified 
subsequently by a compromise between the parties. 
An ex-parte interim order was passed by the High Court on 19.03.90 
directing notice to be Issued to the respondents In the writ petition as also 
E 
In the stay matter, with a direction that the case be listed In the second 
week of May, 1990. The Government was further directed to give the 
writ-petitioner, on his furnishing a "bond, 50% of the timber out of the F 
agreed timber referred to in the compromise. 
The wrlt-petitloner;wlthout waiting for the next date In the case, filed 
on 02.04.90, an application for Initiation of a proceeding for contempt of 
court against the appellant-State and two oflts officers, for non-compliance 
. of the direction Issued by the Court under Its order dated 19.3.1990. 
G 
On 26.7.91, two Commissioners were appointed for submitting a 
report, and a report v•as submitted. 
The contempt proceeding was disposed of in the light of the 
Commissioner's report, directing the appellant-State to Implement the H 
43 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
interim direction issued on 19.3.91. 
In the appeal by special leave by the State it was contended that the 
appellant and its officers· were expecting that they were not required to 
Immediately obey the interim direction, as the stay matter was fixed to be 
heard in the second week of May, 1990; that there was no time indicated 
B for compliance or the direction in the order; that stay application was still 
pending final disposal and the appellant was to be heard; that so long as 
the stay matter In the writ petition was not finally disposed of, the further 
proceeding In the contempt case was itself misconceived BJJd no orders 
therein should have been passed. 
c 
The respondent-writ petitioner opposed the appeal contending that 
the orders passed in the contempt proceedings should be treated to have 
disposed of the stay matter in the writ petition also; that the counsel for 
the respondents in the writ petition bad been beard before the orders were 
issued; that the order dated 19.3.1990 in the circumstances, was to be 
D treated to have become final and, binding on the State; and that the High 
Court was right in issuing the further direction by way of implementation 
of its earlier order. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
E 
HELD: 1.01. The orders passed in the contempt proceeding were not 
justified, being pre-mature, and, must, therefore, be entirely Ignored. The 
High Court should first take up the stay matter in the writ case, and 
dispose it of by an appropriate order. Only therea~r it shall proceed to 
consider whether the State and Its authorities could be accused of being 
F 
guilty of having committed 'Contempt of Court. ( 48-C] 
1.02. 1be respondents before the High Court were raising a serious 
objection disputing the claim of the writ petitioner. Therefore, an order in 
the nature of mandatory direction could not have been justified unless the 
Court was in a position to consider the objections and record a finding, 
G prime facie In nature, in favour of the writ petitioner. Besides challenging 
the claim on merits, the respondent is entitled to raise a plea of non-main-
tainability of a writ application filed for the purpose of executing a decree. 
(47-GJ 
1.03. The scope of a contempt proceeding is very different from that 
H of the pending main case, yet to be heard and disposed of (in future). 
STATE OF J & K v. MOHD. YAQOOB [SHARMA, J.] 
45 
Besides, the respondents, in a pending case are at a disadvantage, if they A 
are called upon to meet the merits of the claim in a contempt proceeding 
at t

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