STATE OF UTTARANCHAL THRU. SECRETARY versus SEHNAZ MIRZA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 12-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 281 
. "" 
STATE OF UTIARANCHAL THRU. SECRETARY 
A 
v. 
SEHNAZ MIRZA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3553-54 Of 2008) 
MAY 12, 2008 
B 
""'> 
[S.S. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
----,-' 
Ji; 
Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000; Proviso ap-
pended to s. 35(3)/Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Ss. 12 and 
14: 
c 
Transfer of pending proceeding in contempt petition from 
Allahabad High Court to Uttranchal High Court - Procedure 
of- Held: Though, on the appointed day, Allahabad High Court 
-+ 
ceased to exercise jurisdiction in respect of transferred terri-
tory, but proviso appended to s. 35(3) of the 2000 Act carves D 
out an exception thereto - In pending contempt petition, 
Allahabad High Court erred in granting leave for filing second 
contempt petition before Uttranchal High Court - In terms of 
the provision t.yls. 35(3) of the Act, it was for the Chief Justice 
of Allahabad Hi~h Court to transfer the record of the case to 
E 
the Uttranacha/ High Court but the Single Judge could also 
continue to hear the matter - Hence, order passed by Single 
• 
Judge of High Court was not in conformity with the procedure 
--+· 
as laid down u/s. 35(3) of2000 Act, hence set aside - Interest 
of justice would be subserved if High Court goes into the merit F 
of the Contempt Petition - Since Uttranachal High Court could 
not have entertained the second contempt petition, the con-
tempt proceeding before the Allahabad High Court revived 
for further action in terms of provisions u/s 35(3) of 2000 Act -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Jurisdiction under G 
-" 
exercise. 
Respondents employees filed a writ petition before 
the Allahabad High Court for regularization of their ser-
vices. The writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble Court. Al-
281 
H 
282 
SUPREME COURT RERORTS 
[2008) 8 S.C.R. 
• • 
A legedly the order of the Allahabad High Court has not been 
complied with by the authorities. Aggrieved, the respon-
dents filed an application under Section 12/14 of the Con-
tempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the meantime, Parliament 
enacted the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2000, and 
B new State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand came into being. In 
the contempt petition, Single Judge of the Allahabad High 
j. 
t 
Court directed the respondent to approach Uttranachal/ 
. 
Uttrakhand High Court for further relief in the matter as 
Educational Authorities in U.P. cannot execute the order 
c passed by the writ court. Respondents filed a contempt 
petition before the Uttaranchal High Court. Although no 
final order has been passed by the High Court, the State 
of Uttarakhand has filed this appeal inter alia on the 
premise that the High Court had no jurisdiction to enter-
D tain the second contempt application in view of Section 
+-
35 of the 2000 Act. 
Appellant-State contended that Respondents con-
tended that in a case of this nature, the cause of action 
would be a continuing one and the bar of limitation as 
E provided for under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts 
Act would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the 
case; and that the State of Uttarakhand has no locus 
standi to maintain the special leave petition Partly allow-
ing the appeals the Court, 
F 
.r 
Held: 1.1 Whereas on and from the appointed day, the 
Allahabad High Court ceased to have any jurisdiction, the 
proviso appended to Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Uttar 
Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 carves out an exception 
thereto. The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, there-
G fore, having regard to the proviso, committed a serious error 
in discharging the contemnor. (para 9) [289-A,B] 
lo--
1.2 The second contempt application was filed be-
fore the Uttaranchal High Court pursuant to the leave 
H granted by the Allahabad High Court. Technically, such 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. SEHNAZ MIRZA 
283 
• 
4. 
& ORS. 
leave could not have been granted. It was for the Chief A 
Justice of the High Court to transfer the records to the 
Uttaranchal High Court but the Single Judge also could 
have continued to hear the matter. (para 9) [287-C,D] 
1.3 The State of Uttarakhand is required to comply with 
B 
' 
,I( 
the order. The financial burden would be on it. This counter 
of the opinion that it could maintain the special leave peti-
tion keeping in view the question of law arising herein, as 
it is otherwise a person aggrieved. (Para 14) [289-B,C] 
2. The order of the Single Judge of the Allahabad c 
High Court being not in conformity
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.