Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Atanu Ghosh And Others vs Sandip Pradhan And Others on 13 December, 2023
1 R.A.No. 260/0008 of 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
R.A.No. 260/0008 of 2023
(Arising out of CP 119/2010)
Reserved on : 07.12.2023 Pronounced on: 13.12.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER (J)
Atanu Ghosh & 3 others.....Review Applicants
Vrs.
Sports Authority of India & Ors.......Review Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. D.Mishra, Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. L.Mishra, Counsel
O R D E R
RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER (J):
The instant Review Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 on 08.08.2023 seeking to review and recall the order dated 09.05.2023 passed in Contempt Petition No. 119 of 2010, with MA No. 464/2023 seeking to condone the delay in filing the RA beyond the period of 30 days.
2 R.A.No. 260/0008 of 2023
2. Section 17 of the AT Act Provides as under:
"17. Power to punish for contempt.--A Tribunal shall have, and exercise, the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has and may exercise and, for this purpose, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), shall have effect subject to the modifications that--
(a) the references therein to a High Court shall be construed as including a reference to such Tribunal;
(b) the references to the Advocate-General in section 15 of the said Act shall be construed,--
(i) in relation to the Central Administrative Tribunal, as a reference to the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General or the Additional Solicitor-General; and
(ii) in relation to an Administrative Tribunal for a State or a Joint Administrative Tribunal for two or more States, as a reference to the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which such Tribunal has been established."
3. It may be stated that the Contempt Petition No. 119 of 2010 filed by the petitioner alleging violation of the order of this Tribunal dated 05.08.2010 in OA 556/2009 was heard by this Tribunal in accordance with the provision mentioned above and vide order dated 09.05.2023 dropped the same as under:
"Heard both sides.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of this Tribunal passed in OA No. 556/2009 has been complied with passing of order dated 01.11.2019 which has been challenged by the applicant in OA No. 720/2019. Therefore he prayed that CP be dropped.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the contemnors have not complied with the order specifically paragraph 5, 6 & 7 of the final order dated 05.08.2010 passed in OA No. 556/2009.3 R.A.No. 260/0008 of 2023
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.S.Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Ors, reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1422 has held that once an order has been passed by the government on the basis of a direction issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate proceeding known to law but that cannot be considered to be a willful violation of the order re-examining the judicial review in contempt proceedings. After going through the records and after hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order of this Tribunal has been complied with by passing of order dated 01.11.2019 and the applicant has challenged the same by filing OA No. 720/2019. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal finds that no contempt lies on the part of the respondents. Accordingly the CP is dropped and notices issued are discharged."
4. As is well known that contempt is between the court and the contemnors and, basically, it is for the court/tribunal to see whether there has been any violation of the orders of the Tribunal or not.
5. We have gone through the provisions of Section 17 of the AT, Act, 1985, which is supported by Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992 and Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Nowhere in these Rules, any such provision is provided giving scope to the court/tribunal to review/recall its own order, which has been passed in Contempt Petition on merit. This Tribunal has specifically wanted from the Ld. Counsel for the applicant to satisfy this Tribunal is there any such provision for maintaining the review application in a contempt petition, but he did not be able to show any such ex facie provision enabling this Tribunal to entertain a Review 4 R.A.No. 260/0008 of 2023 Application filed in the Contempt Petition after its dropping on merit. However, on this subject, this Tribunal came across with the decision dated 11 June, 2013 of the Full Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1111/2000 (Satyapal Singh Son of Sri Ganga ... Vs I..M.G. Khan), an excerpt from it is quoted below:
"14. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad consisting of Hon'ble Binod Kumar Roy and Hon'ble P.K. Jain, JJ in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi and others reported in 1998 (33) ALR page 456- while following the aforesaid full bench of Shivragi (supra), it was observed that it is a settled law that appeal/ revision/ review are creation of statute and no litigant has got an inherent right to prefer appeal/ revision or review. It also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Harbhajan Singh (supra), wherein it has been clearly laid down that in absence of any power, review is impermissible.
15. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench has recently (by its order dated 17.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.66/2013 Mahavir Prasad Vs. CAT Lucknow an Others) upheld an order dated 13.9.2012 passed by CAT, Lucknow Bench in Civil Contempt Petition No. 22/2009 by observing that recall/review application is not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that virtually recalling of the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by CAT, Lucknow Bench will amount to review its earlier decision which was passed with the findings on merit (as is the situation in the present case).
Therefore, unless provided under the Act, no application for review/recall can be moved. It was also specifically observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 does not contain any provision for review of a judgment.
xxx xxx xxx
24. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is our considered view that recall application is not 5 R.A.No. 260/0008 of 2023 maintainable against an order passed in a contempt case decided on merits. We would like to add that Tribunal should refrain itself from dismissing a contempt case for default, particularly after issuance of show cause notice as discussed above. However, if such an order has been passed by a Tribunal, the absence of vesting/conferment of power of recall/review shall not come in the way of recalling because of such order being ab-initio void and nonest and it would be constitutional and legal obligation of a Tribunal to recall such an order as discussed hereinbefore........."
6. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid statutory provision in the contempt proceedings and, the decision quoted above, we are not inclined to entertain this RA filed under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking review of the order dated 09.05.2023 passed in Contempt Petition No. 119 of 2010. Hence, the RA as well as MA filed for condonation of delay stand dismissed. No costs.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) (Pramod Kumar Das) Member (Judl.) Member (Admn.) RK/PS