Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

We do not agree. The scope of a contempt proceeding is very different from that of the pending main case yet to be heard and disposed of (in future). Besides, the respondents in a pending case are at a disadvantage if they are called upon to meet the merits of the claim in a contempt proceeding at the risk of being punished. It is, therefore, not right to suggest that it should be assumed that the initial order of stay got confirmed by the subsequent orders passed in the contempt matter.

6. We, therefore, hold that the High Court should have first taken up the stay matter without any threat to the respondents in the writ case of being, punished for contempt. Only after disposing it of, the other case should have been taken up. It is further significant to note that the respondents before the High Court were raising a serious objection disputing the claim of the writ petitioner. Therefore, an order in the nature of mandatory direction could not have been justified unless the Court was in a position to consider the objections and record a finding, prima facie in nature, in favour of the writ petitioner. Besides challenging the claim on merits, the respondents is entitled to raise a plea of no maintainability of a writ application filed for the purpose of executing a decree. It appears that at an earlier stage the decree in question was actually put in execution when the parties are said to have entered into a compromise. According to the case of the State the entire liability under the decree (treated with the compromise) has already been discharged. The dispute, therefore, will be covered by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It will be a serious question to consider whether in these circumstances the writ petitioner was entitled to maintain his application under Article 226 of the Constitution at all. We do not want to decide any of these controversies between the parties at this stage except holding that the orders passed in the contempt proceeding were not justified, being pre-mature, and must, therefore, be entirely ignored. The High Court should first take up the stay matter in the writ case and dispose it of by an appropriate order. Only thereafter it shall proceed to consider whether the State and its authorities could be accused of being guilty of having committed contempt of Court.

14. The law laid down in Mohd. Yaqoob's Khan's case (supra) has been followed in subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Modern Food Industries (INDIA) Ltd. and Anr. v. Sachidan and Dass and Anr. 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 465 wherein in para 4, 5 and 6 of the decision Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-

4. Before the High Court, appellants urged that before any contempt proceedings could be initiated, it was necessary and appropriate for the Division Bench to examine the prayer for stay, or else, the appeal itself might become infructuous. This did not commend itself to the High Court which sought to proceed with the contempt first. We are afraid, the course adopted by the High Court does not commend itself ax proper. If, without considering the prayer for committal for contempt, the appellants may find, as has now happened, the very purpose of appeal and the prayer for interlocutory Slav infructuuo7us. It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve the appellants from obeying the order under appeal and that any compliance with the learned Single Judge's order would he subject to the final result of the appeal. But then the changes brought about in the interregnum in obedience of the order under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. 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 slay 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. This is the view taken in Slate of J&K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan.
5. In the present case, under the threat of proceedings of contempt, the appellants had to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the pendency of their appeal and the application for stay. The petitioners are confronted with a position where their stay application is virtually rendered infructuous by the steps they had to lake on threat of contempt.
6. We, accordingly, direct that all further proceedings in the contempt proceedings he stayed. It will he appropriate for the High Court to take up and dispose of the application for stay without reference to the developments in the interregnum, namely, that the respondent had to obey the order of the learned Single Judge under pain of proceedings of contempt. Depending upon the outcome of the appellants application for stay, the further question whether or not the reinstatement should be reversed would arise.

17. Thus from a close analysis of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court referred herein before it appears that the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Yaqoob Khan's case (supra) has held that so long the stay matter in the writ petition was not finally disposed of the further proceeding in the contempt case was itself misconceived and no orders should have been passed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that in the circumstances of the case, the contempt proceeding is premature and liable to be ignored. In the aforesaid case the contempt proceedings were drawn on account of non-compliance of interim stay order against which stay vacation application of respondents in writ petition was pending before the High Court. The same view has been reiterated by two Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Modern Food Industries case (supra) wherein final order of learned single Judge was challenged at appellate forum of same High Court and stay application in appeal was pending consideration, meanwhile contempt proceedings were drawn to implement the order of learned single Judge before disposal of stay application. In the aforesaid facts and situation of the case Hon'ble Apex Court has held that wherever the order whose disobedience 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 atleast simultaneously with 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. Although in Dr. Phurindra Singh & others case (supra) two Judges division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken different view in the matter without noticing earlier decision of larger and co-ordinate Bench but it was in a slightly different factual backdrop of the case, wherein the order passed by learned single Judge was not stayed by the Division Bench of the same High Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken different view in the matter and has held that when the order passed by learned single Judge of the High Court was not stayed by Division Bench, the contempt petition should have been disposed of on merits instead of adjourning the same till disposal of appeal so that the question of deliberate violation of subsisting order of the court is considered and enforceability of the court's order is not permitted to be diluted. Again in Suresh Chandra Poddar's case (supra) two Judges Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has taken virtually same and similar view as was taken in first two cases referred earlier but without making reference of those cases and in given facts and situation of the case under consideration Hon'ble Apex Court has held that not granting the stay by itself is not enough to speed up proceedings against a person in contempt because the very order is yet to become final. At any rate the tribunal should have directed the appellant to implement the direction, in absence of stay order from the High Court, wherein a time frame fixed by it. We would have appreciated if the tribunal had done so and then considered whether the action should be taken in the event of the non-implementation of the order after expiry of said time frame.