Jharkhand High Court
The West Bengal Power Development ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2024
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022
-----
The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited through its Authorised Signatory Souvik Mridha, Assistant Manager (Legal), Kolkata (West Bengal).
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjay Mishra, Assistant General Manager and Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Large Corporate Branch, Hare Street, Kolkata, West Bengal.
.......... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
: Mr. Atul Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Priti Priyamvada, A.C. to G.P.V
-----
Order No.08 Date: 01.08.2024
1. The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding against the opposite party no. 2 alleging wilful & deliberate disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Court of Tribunal Judge under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1957), Rajmahal Project Area, Lalmatia at Godda in Misc. Case Nos. 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08 of 2018 whereby the said Court had clearly observed/directed that any revocation of Bank Guarantee would be subject to its decision. However, despite the said observation/direction, the opposite party no. 2 partially appropriated an amount of Rs. 223,51,65,000/- from the Bank Guarantees furnished by the petitioner and transferred the same in Bank Account No. 0276050414586 of Punjab National Bank Cannaught Circus Branch, New Delhi on 21.07.2022.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed five miscellaneous applications being Misc. Case Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 of 2018 under section 27 of Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 2015) in the court of Tribunal Judge under the Act, 1957, Rajmahal Project Area, Lalmatiya at Godda in which learned Tribunal Judge vide order dated 12.10.2018 held as under:-
"In view of the facts, the stay granted by this Tribunal which has already been lapsed on 06.10.2018 is not extended, however it is made clear that any revocation of Bank Guarantee will be subject to the decision of the Tribunal."
3. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has committed Contempt of Court by remitting the amount of Rs.223,51,65,000/- in the bank account of Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, New Delhi after partial appropriation of the Bank Guarantees submitted by the petitioner knowing fully well that the said Nominated Authority did not insist for partial invocation/appropriation of the Bank Guarantee at the time of its renewal in the year 2019 subsequent to the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Learned Tribunal Judge under C.B.A. Act, Godda in Misc. Case Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 of 2018 and now after expiring of more than 3 ½ years from passing of the said order, the Bank Guarantees have been partially encashed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, at the outset, raises objection with respect to maintainability of the present contempt petition by submitting that the petitioner has chosen a wrong forum by filing the present contempt application, rather it should 2 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022 have filed Execution Case for implementation of the order dated 12.10.2018 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 4,5,6,7,8 of 2018.
5. The primary question falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether filing of the present contempt petition alleging wilful violation of the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Court of Tribunal Judge under the Act, 1957, Rajmahal Project Area, Lalmatia at Godda in Misc. Case Nos. 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08 of 2018, is maintainable?
6. Article 215 of the Constitution of India enumerates that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short, 'the Act, 1971"), "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. Section 11 of the said Act provides that a High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits. Section 23 of the Act, 1971 provides that the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its procedure.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas 3 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022 Corporation and Others Vs. M. George Ravishekaran & Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373, has held that the power vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty upon the Courts to exercise the same with greatest care and caution.
8. In the case of R.N. Dey & Others Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Others reported in (2000) 4 SCC 400, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided. Discretion given to the court is to be exercised for maintenance of the court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the court.
9. The aforesaid judgment has also been followed in the case of Hukum Chand Deswal Vs. Satish Raj Deswal reported in (2021) 13 SCC 166.
10. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others Vs. Sheo Shankar Mishra reported in 1995 SCC OnLine Pat 358, learned Division Bench of Patna High Court has held as under:-
4 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022 "12. The execution proceeding as well as contempt proceeding both are independent proceedings and they operate in two different fields or spheres. So far as the execution proceeding is concerned, that is filed by a party against the other party to the litigation for enforcement of the rights and liabilities created under the decree or the order. The contempt proceedings are proceedings to uphold the prestige and the dignity of the court and majesty of law. It has nothing to do with the execution of the decree or order passed in a litigation. One proceeding cannot be termed as a substitute for the other. The contempt proceeding cannot be used as a weapon against the judgment debtor to force him to comply with the decree or order.
The contempt proceeding can be initiated only when the materials on record show wilful disobedience of the order. Raising valid objection in the execution proceeding regarding executability of the decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or under any law, or taking other recourse of similar type permissible in law in an execution proceeding, cannot be turned as a wilful disobedience and a proceeding for contempt cannot be initiated on that ground."
11. In the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2012) 4 SCC 307, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the matter relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal order, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing the decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character.
12. Now, it is well settled that the power to issue contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution of India as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the same has to be exercised with greatest care and caution. The weapon of contempt cannot be used for execution of a decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law has been provided. Discretion given to the court is to be 5 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022 exercised for maintenance of the court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, no party has right to insist the court to exercise jurisdiction under Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as contempt is between a contemner and the court.
13. In the present case, Misc. Case Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of 2018 were filed by the petitioner under section 27 of the Act, 2015 before the Tribunal Judge under the Act, 1957. Section 27(1) of the Act, 2015 provides that any dispute arising out of any action of the Central Government, nominated authority or Commissioner of payment or designated custodian, or any dispute between the successful bidder or allottee and prior allottee arising out of any issue connected with the Act shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1957.
14. On perusal of the Act, 1957 it is evident that the constitution of Tribunal has been provided under section 14(2) of the said Act which empowers the Central Government to constitute Tribunal consisting of a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court. It is further provided under Section 14(5) of the Act, 1957 that the Tribunal after hearing the dispute, shall make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just, and specify the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid; and in making the award the Tribunal shall have regard to the circumstances of each case and to the foregoing provisions of the said Act with respect to the manner in which the amount of compensation shall be determined in so far as the said provisions or any of them may be applicable. Moreover, Section 14(8) of the Act, 1957 provides 6 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022 that the Tribunal, in the proceedings before it, shall have all the powers of a Civil Court as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of any document; reception of evidence on affidavits; requisitioning any public record from any court or office; and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses. Further, Section 23 of the Act, 1957 contains the provision of penalties for a person who wilfully obstructs any person in doing any of the acts authorised by sub-section (3) of section 4 or wilfully fills up, destroys, damages or displaces any mark made under section 4, or wilfully obstructs the lawful exercise of any other power conferred by or under the said Act, or fails to comply with any order made or direction given under the Act. The said Section provides that such persons shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
15. The Act, 2015 does not speak about the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal for non-compliance of any order passed by it while dealing with the cases under section 27 of the Act, 2015. This Court is of the view that since the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1957 has been empowered to deal with the cases under section 27 of the Act, 2015, the provision of penalties provided under section 23 of the Act, 1957 for non-compliance of any of the orders or directions given under the said Act, will equally apply to the non-compliance of any order passed by the Tribunal 7 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022 while dealing with the cases under section 27 of the Act, 2015. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner has the remedy to file application before the Tribunal itself for taking action under section 23 of the Act, 1957 against the opposite party no. 2 if it feels that the opposite party no. 2 has shown disobedience of the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Court of Tribunal, Judge under C.B.A. Act.
16. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the present contempt petition is not maintainable.
17. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner will, however, be at liberty to approach before the Tribunal Judge under C.B.A. Act, Rajmahal Project Area, Lalmatia at Godda against the opposite party no.2 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 12.10.2018. If the said application is filed, the Tribunal Judge shall pass appropriate order looking to the merit of the claim of the parties without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the present contempt petition.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Vikas/AFR 8 Cont. Case (Civil) No.595 of 2022