Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Sharma vs Shri Bharat Yadav on 7 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3127
1 CONC-390-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 390 of 2025
ANIL SHARMA
Versus
SHRI BHARAT YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav - Advocate for applicant.
ORDER
By this contempt petition, petitioner has complained the non- compliance of order dated 2/12/2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this court in WP No. 19750 of 2024, by which respondents were directed to decide the representation.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that although the representation has been decided, but it has not been decided in accordance with law, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Employees' State Insurance Corpn. vs. All India ITDC Employees' Union and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 257, respondents have committed contempt.
3. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
4. It is the case of applicant that representation has been decided. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether this Court can Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/14/2025 11:37:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3127 2 CONC-390-2025 go beyond the four corners of the order passed by the Writ Court? The Supreme Court, in the case of K. Arumugam v. V. Balakrishnan reported in (2019) 18 SCC 150, has held as under :-
18. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. Observing that in the contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been floated, in Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran [Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran , (2014) 3 SCC 373] , speaking for the Bench, Ranjan Gogoi, J., held as under : (SCC pp. 381-82, para 19) "19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court 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 in the courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/14/2025 11:37:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3127
3 CONC-390-2025 of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly [Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly , (2002) 5 SCC 352 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 703] , V.M. Manohar Prasadv . N. Ratnam Raju [V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju, (2004) 13 SCC 610 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 907] , Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami [Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami, (2008) 5 SCC 339] a n d Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV [Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV , (2006) 1 SCC 613] ."
5. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that since the representation of the petitioner has been decided, therefore, no case for proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is made out. If applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, then he has the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/14/2025 11:37:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3127 4 CONC-390-2025 remedy of approaching the appropriate forum thereby challenging the same.
6. With aforesaid liberty, the contempt petition is dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/14/2025 11:37:40 PM