Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suo-Moto vs S K Jaina on 30 August, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.677/2013
Suo-Moto ----Petitioner
Versus
1. S K Jaina s/o Shri Diwakar Jaina, Regional Officer, NWRA,
AICTE, Chandigarh.
2. Shri Rajeev Gulati, Regional Officer, AICTE, Chandigarh.
3. Shri A.K. Shukla, Regional Officer, AICTE, Chandigarh.
----Respondent
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2645/2012 Choudhary Charan Singh Medical Shikshan Prashikshan Sansthan, a Registered body, duly registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 bearing Registration No.13/1999 through authorized Signatory Shri Laxman Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Bihari Lal Ji, aged about 55 years, Chairman, choudhary Charan Singh Medical Shikshan Prashikshan Sansthan, 7/59, N.E.B. Housing Board, Alwar (Raj.) ...Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.)
2. Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. All India Council for Technical Education through its Chairman AICTE, 7th Floor, Chandlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi.
4. The Regional Officer and director, AICTE, North Western Regional Office, 1-A, 5th Floor, DTE (PB) building, Dikshin Marg, Sector-36A, Chandigarh.
...Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2646/2012 Shri Kirishana Medical Research Foundation Society, a Registered body, duly registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 bearing Registration No. 738/2001-2002 date 6.10.2001 through Authorized Signatory Smt. Shalini Gupta W/o Shri pawan Kumar, aged about 35 years, Secretary, Shri Krishana Medical Research Foundation Society, 2, Gangwal park, Jaipur (Raj.) (2 of 6) [ CCP-677/2013] ...Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. All India council for Technical Education through its Chairman AICTE, 7th floor, Chandlok building, Janpath, New Delhi.
4. The Regional Officer and Director, AICTE, North Western Regional Office, 1-A, 5th Floor, DTE (PB) Building, Dikshin Marg, Sector-36A, Chandigarh.
...Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.M. Ranjan, Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K. Bajpai.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 30/08/2017 Vide interim order dated 19.09.2012 this court directed that the respondent-All India Council for Technical Education represented at the relevant time by its Regional Officer and Director North-Western Region Office Mr.S.K. Jaina to conduct a fresh inspection of the petitioner-institute through an expert committee within four weeks for the purpose of considering its application for grant of approval for setting up polytechnic college.
On 03.01.2013 counsel for the AICTE prayed for time to conduct fresh inspection in terms of the interim order dated 19.09.2012. The court thereupon adjourned the matter to (3 of 6) [ CCP-677/2013] 17.01.2013.
On 16.07.2013 noticing that the interim order dated 19.09.2012 had not been complied with and fresh inspection of the petitioner-institute had not been conducted, the Court took suo motu cognizance of the deliberate disobedience of its interim order dated 19.09.2012 invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India and called upon the Regional Director to personally remain present before the court alongwith a written explanation as to why action not be taken for contempt of the order of the Court.
On the matter coming up before this Court on 29.07.2013 this court issued notice to Mr.S.K. Jaina Regional Officer and Director AICTE North Western Regional Office in view of the fact that as Regional Director, he was obliged to ensure compliance with the interim order dated 19.09.2012 passed by this Court.
Mr. S.K. Jaina has filed appearance through counsel Mr.A.K. Bajpai and submitted his written explanation. It has been stated that following the interim order dated 19.09.2012 application for modification thereof was filed but was dismissed. Thereafter a D.B. Special Appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Subsequently he was transferred out as Regional Director of the North Western Region on 24.05.2013. Thereafter he had no control over the functioning of the Regional Office and compliance of the interim order dated 19.09.2012 passed by this Court. It has been then stated that however the delay in compliance of the order dated 19.09.2012 was not intentional and remedy against the interim order was being deligently and bonafide pursued as (4 of 6) [ CCP-677/2013] advised. There was however no intention of any deliberate disobedience the order of the Court passed on 19.09.2012. It has been submitted that yet if contempt of the interim order of this Court indeed appears to have been made out by the non- inspection of the petitioner-institute within four weeks of the interim order dated 19.09.2012, his unconditional apology may be accepted.
Mr. M.M. Ranjan Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.A.K. Bajpai for Mr.S.K. Jaina submitted that inspection of the petitioner-institute seeking approval for its polytechnic college was finally conducted in October 2015 when the said college was found not even remotely compliant with the parameters set by the AICTE for grant of approval for polytechnic colleges. It was submitted that in this State of things non-inspection of the petitioner-institute as directed by this Court under its interim order dated 19.09.2012 has not affected the petitioner-institute prejudicially. Mr.M.M. Ranjan was quick to add that submission however does not seek to downplay the failure to obey the order of this Court passed on 19.09.2012, but the fact of inspection having been finally conducted be seen as a mitigating factor.
This court in its contempt jurisdiction is not concerned with the merits of the order passed by it or with subsequent events which may establish that non-compliance resulted in no prejudice to a party to whose benefit the court's order was. It is fundamental to the rule of law that the orders of this Court, interim or final, unless modified or vacated should be complied (5 of 6) [ CCP-677/2013] with. Non-compliance is not a matter of personal affront to the presiding Judge. It is destructive of the rule of law and the faith of the litigating public in the administration of justice. Non- compliance of the interim order of this Court passed on 19.09.2012 within four weeks as directed, therefore in these circumstances, cannot be lightly taken, more so when there is no justifiable reason as appears in the instant case.
I am of the considered view that taking remedies against an interim order on the ground that the litigant disagrees with it is no escape from his/her obligation to comply therewith until the said order is vacated or modified. This situation obtains in the instant case. Despite the direction of this Court under the interim order dated 19.09.2012 to inspect the petitioner-institute afresh within four weeks for the purposes of considering its application for grant of approval for setting up polytechnic college, the inspection was done only in the Month of October 2015--after three long years. No doubt Mr.S.K. Jaina was transferred out as Regional Officer and Director North Western Regional Office on 24.05.2013, yet by the aforesaid date about eight moths had lapsed since the passing of the interim order dated 19.09.2012. He did not care to comply with the said order as it was his legal duty to the administration of justice and the rule of law which is the bedrock of the republic.
Consequently, I would be inclined to find Mr.Jaina guilty of contempt. However in the facts of the case instead of visiting him with imprisonment for a term, I would impose a fine of Rs.2000/- on him, the amount being maximum permissible under Section 12 (6 of 6) [ CCP-677/2013] of the Contempt of Court Act. I am of the considered view that the limitation of fine under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court cannot be circumvented by invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India and hence find the contention of Mr.Shailesh Prakaash Sharma untenable that a larger fine be imposed on the contemnor by resort to Article 215 of the constitution of India under which proceedings were first initiated. The fine of Rs.2000/- be recovered from Mr.S.K. Jaina's salary and be paid by any legally permissible mode to the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks from today. The fact of Mr.Jaina not complying with the order of this court despite having full knowledge thereof and being found guilty of contempt therefor should also be recorded in his Annual Confidential Report.
The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(ALOK SHARMA) J.
Karan/54-56