Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Jayalakshmi vs S.R. Sonwalkar, General Manager, ... on 27 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD207
ORDER P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard.
2. A question has been raised in the instant appeal whether, while disposing of a contempt petition, directions issued by the Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be modified. Officer has raised objection as to the maintainability of the appeal only in respect of modification as appeal is provided against conviction in a contempt proceeding under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but not against the rejection of the petition by a person who brings to the notice of the Court the violation of its order. We, however, do not feel it necessary to consider whether appeal shall lie as of right against the impugned order, dismissing the petition for contempt against the respondents under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. We are sufficiently persuaded to hold that modification of the directions in the writ petition by the impugned order in itself is a judgment for the purpose of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court and is appealable accordingly as an appeal in a civil proceeding. We accordingly entertain the appeal and consider whether, in exercise of the power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court can extend its jurisdiction to enter into validity of the directions, which are allegedly violated and set aside the same or modify the same.
3. Article 215 of the Constitution of India declares the High Court to be a Court of record and to have all the powers of a Court of record, including the power to punish for its contempt. Contempt of Courts Act reiterates the said power of the High Court and extends the same to punish for the contempt of Courts subordinate to it. It needs no reiteration and since there is no contention before us otherwise, we may safely state that the power inherent in the Court to modify its directions can be exercised any time subject to well-known constraints of delay and laches and in the case of review of an order subject to law of limitation in this behalf. But a proceeding for contempt on the alleged violation of the order of the Court can be used only for the purposes of determining whether the order has been violated and if violated, whether it constitutes wilful disobedience and under its extended jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the Court can also ensure that the directions are effectuated and for the said purpose issue necessary and further directions. In the instant case, it appears, certain facts are brought to the notice of the Court under which a settlement is pleaded and it is said in view of the settlement the respondent-contemnor was not in a position to honour the directions of the Court. Learned single Judge has accepted the said contention and also the plea of the respondent that in lieu of compassionate appointment monetary benefit could be provided to the petitioner-appellant in a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of employment as per the directions of the Court. The above, in our view, is not warranted in a proceeding under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The impugned judgment to the extent as above is fit to be set aside. The petitioner-appellant can demonstrate before the appropriate Court whether direction of the Court has been wilfully disobeyed.
4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The petitioner of contempt shall be posted before the appropriate Bench and disposed of in accordance with law.