SURESH CHANDRA PODDAR versus DHANI RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 06-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SURESH CHANDRA PODDAR 
v. 
DHANI RAM AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 6, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985/Colllempt of Cowts Act, 1971 : 
S.17/ss.12 and 13-'Central Administrative Tribunal-Exercise of con-
temptjurisdiction-ln a seniority matter Tribunal passed order on 3.11.1999-
No time limit fixed by Tribunal for compliance of order-Department seeking 
legal advice and .filing writ petition in Hifih Court-Notice issued in writ 
petition oH 24. 10.2000-Meanivhile conte111pt tu.:tinn initiated and not[ce issued 
therein-Order complied with on 27.10.2000 and Tribunal informed-Apolofiy 
tendered tumed down-Tribunal holding the officer guilty of contempt of court 
D 
a.\' there ivas delay in if11ple1nenting the order-Held, contempt jurisdiction not 
to be exercised casually but only sparingly and in very deserving cases-Courts 
should not.feel unduly touchy when they are told that the orders have not been 
implemellled.forthwith-]f the court is told that its direction has been complied 
with subsequently, albeit qfter receipt of notice of contempt, courts are expected 
E 
to shoH.1 judicial grace and 1nagnanilnity in deaUng with the action for con-
tempt-Court should be generous in discharging a contemner if he tenders an 
apology to the .rnti~faction of the court-On/er of Tiibunal set aside-Q(ficer 
exonerated totally from the action of contempt of l'OUJ'(. 
Principal Rajni Parekh Arts, K.B. Commerce and B.C.J. Science Col-
p 
lege, Khambhat and Anr. v. Mahendra Ambalal Shah, [1986) 2 SCC 560, 
distinguished. 
L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., [1997) 3 SCC 261, 
referred !o. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 535 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.2000 of the Central Adminis-
trative Tribunal New Delhi in C.P. No. 318/2000 in O.A. No. 195 of 1996. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, R.K. Maheshwari, Ms. 
H 
Shally Bhasin, Rishi Maheshwari and Rahul Gupta for the Appellant. 
498 
'I
..1 
• 
SURESH CHANDRA PODDAR v. DHANl RAM 
499 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is an instance of how a Tribunal vested with the powers to punish 
for Contempt of Court became over sensitive in using such powers. Time and 
again this Court has cautioned as to when and in what circumstances Contempt 
of Court jurisdiction is to be exercised. Such a power is not intended to be 
exercised as a matter of course. Courts should not feel unduly touchywhen 
they are told that the orders have not been implemented forthwith. If the court 
is told ihat the direction or the order of the Court has been complied with 
subsequently, albeit"after receipt of notice of contempt, we except the courts 
to show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with. the action for con-
tempt. 
The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, 
has now convicted the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi 
under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 2000 
as per the impugned order. The Bench held that the appellant is guilty of 
contempt, not because he did not implement the order passed by the Tribunal 
but because there was delay in implementing the order. 
The order of the Tribunal which is said to have been belatedly complied 
with was passed on 3rd November, 1999, the operative portion of which reads 
thus : 
"For the foregoing reasons, the present O.A. succeeds. The seniority 
list published by respondents I to 3 on 21st November, 1995 in so far 
as the same shows respondents 4 and 5 senior to applicants is set aside. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Respondents I to 3 are now directed to publish a fresh seniority list 
F 
in the light of the observations contained in the present judgment and 
grant the applicants their due seniority over that of respondents 4 and 
5 and grant them further consequential reliefs they may be entitled to 
under rules. There shall, however, in the facts and circumstances of this 
case be no order as to costs." 
What is discernible from the said operative portion is that the Tribunal 
did not fix up a time limit within which the said direction has to be complied 
with. The contempt action was taken against the appellant on 24th August, 
2000. Appellant submitted in the reply before the Tribunal that the order of the 
Tribunal was being challenged before the High Court of Delhi under Article 
G 
H 
A 
B 

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