Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs Sri Amit Mohan Prasad,Principal ... on 26 July, 2022

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1934 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Amit Mohan Prasad,Principal Secretary
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
 

1. A reply to the affidavit of compliance has been filed today by the counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mata Prasad, learned counsel for the State.

3. The writ Court while disposing of the Writ A No.14930 of 2020 on 12.01.2021 had directed the opposite party No.1 to decide representation of the applicant within four months, pursuant to which the opposite party, on 18.04.2022 had taken a decision and decided the representation of the applicant, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure 1 to the affidavit of compliance filed by opposite party on 21.05.2022.

4. Learned counsel the applicant submits that despite the representation being moved by the applicant, the pension amount has remained the same and the opposite party have not complied the order of writ Court.

5. Opposing the contempt application, Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel states that the only direction of the writ Court was to the extent to decide the representation, which the authorities have done on 18.4.2022 as such the order of writ Court has been complied with.

6. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. Recently the Apex Court in case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held that the while dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry. Relevant para 8 of the judgment is extracted hereas under :

"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "willful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigor when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."

8. Once the order of writ Court was only to the extent to decide the representation, which the authorities have done on 18.4.2022, no further case for contempt is made out.

9. The contempt proceedings has therefore rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

10. Contempt notice stand discharged.

11. File consigned to record.

12. However, it is open to the applicant to challenge the order passed by opposite party on 18.04.2022, if so advised, before the appropriate Forum.

Order Date :- 26.7.2022 Kushal