Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar vs Mrs. Nitu Kumari on 20 August, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.595 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17380 of 2023
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Registration Excise and
Prohibition Dept. (Registration) Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department
(Registration) Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General of Registration, Prohibition Excise and Registration
Department (Registration), Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Prohibition Excise and
Registration Department (Registration) Bihar, Patna.
5. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Prohibition, Excise and
Registration Department (Registration), Tirhut Division Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
6. The District Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.
7. The District Sub-Registrar, Registration, East Champaran, Motihari, Bihar.
8. That the Certificate Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Mrs. Nitu Kumari W/o Mr. Rajesh Kumar Motihari, Mohalla Miskat, Thana
Motihari, District- Esat Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3 20-08-2024We see that in the present case the statutory imprimatur to deposit 50% of the disputed amount has been ignored by the learned Single Judge; despite noticing it in the order, while directing deposit of 10% of the disputed amount.
2. We are of the opinion that there should be stay of Patna High Court L.P.A No.595 of 2024(3) dt.20-08-2024 2/4 the impugned judgment and we stay the impugned judgment and issue consolidated notice on the appeal and the limitation petition on the sole respondent under both modes, i.e.,under ordinary process as well as registered cover with A.D. for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks.
3. Learned Advocate General points out that a contempt has been initiated in M.J.C. no.1527 of 2023 vide order dated 2.8.2024 for non-compliance of the aforementioned order. The appeal itself was filed on 7.6.2024. The learned Advocate General specifically takes us to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. versus Sachidanand Dass & Anr. [1995 suppl.(4) SCC 465] from which paragraph nos. 4 and 5 are extracted hereinbelow:
"4. Before the High Court, appellants urged that before any contempt proceedings could be initiated, it was necessary and appropriate for the Division Bench to examine the prayer for stay, or else, the appeal itself might become infructuous. This did not commend itself to the High Court which sought to proceed with the contempt first. We are afraid, the course adopted by the High Court does not commend itself as proper. If, without considering the prayer for stay, obedience to the Single Judge's order was insisted upon at the pain of committal for Patna High Court L.P.A No.595 of 2024(3) dt.20-08-2024 3/4 contempt, the appellants may find, as has now happened, the very purpose of appeal and the prayer for interlocutory stay infructuous. It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve the appellants from obeying the order under appeal and that any compliance with the learned Single Judge's order would be subject to the final result of the appeal. But then the changes brought about in the interregnum in obedience of the order under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and to insist upon proceeding with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases, as here, cause serious prejudice. This is the view taken in State of J & K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan .
5. In the present case, under the threat of proceedings of contempt, the appellants had to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the pendency of their appeal and the application for stay. The petitioners are confronted with a position where their stay application is virtually rendered Patna High Court L.P.A No.595 of 2024(3) dt.20-08-2024 4/4 infructuous by the steps they had to take on threat of contempt."
4. We have stayed the impugned judgment but even going by the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the learned Single Judges ought not to proceed with the contempt till the stay petition in the appeal filed is disposed of; when the pendency of the stay petition along with the appeal is brought to the notice of the learned Single Judges.
5. Post this appeal immediately after service of notice (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U