Patna High Court - Orders
M/S. Suraksha Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd @ M/S ... vs The State Of Bihar, Through Principal ... on 20 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3483 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15034 of 2014
======================================================
M/s. Suraksha Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd @ M/s Suraksha Diagnostic Limited
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary namely Mr. Pratyaya Amrit
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashish Giri
For the SHC : Mr.Kishore Kumar Sinha
Ms.Aditi Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.SD Yadav, AAG-9
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA
CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-12-20241. This application is filed by the petitioner for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for their willful and deliberate disobedience shown in compliance of the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in CWJC No. 15034 of 2014 by which the Writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 06.11.2014 issued by the Executive Director, State Health Society, Bihar was set aside. Further, this Court observed that the action of the respondent in encashing the bank guarantee was illegal and arbitrary in nature and the Patna High Court MJC No.3483 of 2024(3) dt.20-12-2024 2/8 respondents were directed to refund the amounts of the bank guarantee along with 9% simple interest to the applicant from the date of encashment. The contempt petition was filed on 25.09.2024. The show-cause notice on the opposite party No. 3 was filed on 18.12.2024. The contents of the show-cause notice disclose that the competent authority has found good grounds for filing an appeal against the orders passed in CWJC No. 15034 of 2014 dated 09.08.2024 and accordingly, LPA was filed filed on 17.12.2024 vide e-filing No. ABR20230001542C202400004. Further, the show- cause of the 3rd respondent disclose that the non- compliance of the order dated 09.08.2024 was not deliberate or intentional, but was due to the filing of LPA. Further prays leave to file another show-cause notice, if at all required.
2. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel appearing for the State.
3. The Learned counsel for the applicant reported to the Court that the LPA was filed on Patna High Court MJC No.3483 of 2024(3) dt.20-12-2024 3/8 17.12.2024 and it was numbered on 18.12.2024. However, the LPA do not contain any Interlocutory Application for stay of the order of this Court. It is further contended by the Learned counsel for the applicant that the LPA was filed beyond the period of limitation but no petition for delay condonation was preferred by the State. Therefore, the contention that the LPA is pending, cannot be accepted which literally means that there is no LPA against the order of this Court.
4. On the other hand, the Learned Government pleader for the State contended that they will make a mention before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for hearing the LPA, at the earliest possible and therefore, prayed to grant time.
5. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the LPA was filed beyond the period of limitation. Further, no Interlocutory Application is filed along with LPA 1271 of 2024.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Patna High Court MJC No.3483 of 2024(3) dt.20-12-2024 4/8 No. 3932 of 1992, Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. & Anr. v. Sachidanand Dass & Anr., reported in 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 465. made certain observations which reads as follows:-
"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."
7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the LPA was filed beyond the period of limitation and the LPA do not disclose about the filing of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Learned counsel for the applicant further referred to a judgment passed in Patna High Court MJC No.3483 of 2024(3) dt.20-12-2024 5/8 the case of H.Phunindre Singh (Dr) & Ors. v. K.K. Sethi & Anr. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 640, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken absolutely contrary view which reads as follows:-
"2.Heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, in the facts of the case, particularly when the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not stayed by the Division Bench, the contempt petition should have been disposed of on merits instead of adjourning the same till disposal of the appeal, so that question of deliberate violation of the subsisting order of the Court is considered and enforceability of the Court's order is not permitted to be diluted. In the facts of the case, we feel that the contempt petition should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order and we order accordingly. It is further directed that before disposal of the contempt petition, the pending appeal should not be taken up for hearing. The appeal is accordingly Patna High Court MJC No.3483 of 2024(3) dt.20-12-2024 6/8 disposed of."
8. As per the abovesaid judgment the contempt application should have been disposed of first. Further the Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on judgment of the Apex Court of three Judges Bench in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 273 which reads as follows:-
"29. Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation can hardly be offered as any defence in an action for contempt. Inordinate delay in complying with the orders of the courts has also received judicial criticism. It is inappropriate for the parties concerned to keep the execution of the court's orders in abeyance for an inordinate period. Inaction or even dormant behaviour by the officers in the highest echelons in the hierarchy of the Government in complying with the directions/orders of this Court certainly amounts to disobedience. Inordinate delay of years in complying with the orders of the court or Patna High Court MJC No.3483 of 2024(3) dt.20-12-2024 7/8 in complying with the directed stipulations within the prescribed time, has been viewed by this Court seriously and held to be the contempt of court, as it undermines the dignity of the court. Reference in this regard can be made to Maniyeri Madhavan v. Inspector of Police [1993 Supp (2) SCC 501: 1993 SCC (Cri) 696: AIR 1993 SC 356] and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh [(2002) 4 SCC 21]. Even a lackadaisical attitude, which itself may not be deliberate or wilful, have not been held to be a sufficient ground of defence in a contempt proceeding. Obviously, the purpose is to ensure compliance with the orders of the court at the earliest and within stipulated period."
9. Show-cause reveals that the State has preferred LPA 1271 of 2024, but without any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or for the stay of the proceeding of this Court. Further, the show-cause do not contain any mention of filing of application for stay of this Court's order. Patna High Court MJC No.3483 of 2024(3) dt.20-12-2024 8/8
10. Taking into consideration the judgments of the Apex court it can be construed that the contempt case can be proceeded, if there is no stay and filing of the LPA by the authorities cannot be a ground, for not proceeding against the contemnors.
11. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned counsel for the applicant that there are still some defects in the LPA, which are not rectified by the State.
12. Considering all the aspects, this Court directs the respondents to comply the orders of this Court within a period of three weeks positively, failing which the rule shall be issued against the respondent. Re-list the matter on 31.01.2025.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) vinita/-
U