Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajeev Ranjan And Others vs Neha Gupta And Another on 16 January, 2025
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M)
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
Reserved on: 28.11.2024
Pronounced on: 16.1.2025
Rajeev Ranjan and others .....Appellants
Versus
Neha Gupta and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana and
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana
for the appellants.
Respondent No. 1 proceeded against ex parte.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Oberoi, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The instant appeal has been directed against the order dated
29.10.2024, as passed by the learned Contempt Bench of this Court in
COCP No. 1934 of 2024.
Brief facts of the case.
2. The husband of respondent No. 1 was initially appointed on
26.2.1984 as Labour Officer in Haryana State Minor Irrigation
Tubewell and worked with the said department till its closure in the year
2003. Subsequently, in view of policy dated 21.6.2006, he was vide
appointment letter dated 12.8.2008, thus appointed as Labour Officer-
cum-Conciliation Officer in the Labour Department, Haryana, and,
1 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -2-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
became posted at Karnal. However, unfortunately the husband of
respondent No. 1 met with a fatal accident on 1.11.2008, thus leaving
behind his wife (respondent No. 1), a son, a minor daughter and parents
as his legal heirs.
3. Respondent No. 1 submitted her case for monthly financial
assistance. Since the said amount was not released to her, therefore
respondent No. 1 made various representations to the department
concerned. Vide letter dated 26.3.2012, issued by the department
concerned, respondent No. 1 was informed that she was not entitled to
family pension as the service of her husband was less than one year in
the department concerned.
4. Respondent No. 1 herein instituted CWP No. 23933 of
2014 before this Court challenging the letter (supra), with a further
prayer therein, for issuance of directions to the authorities concerned, to
grant her family pension as per the provisions of Family Pension
Scheme, 1964 and release the monthly financial assistance under Rule 3
of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of
Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. Vide order dated
12.4.2016, the said petition was allowed by this Court. The operative
part of the order (supra) becomes extracted hereinafter.
“Applying the ratio of the above mentioned judgments, the
writ petition is allowed and a direction is given to the
respondents to give the family pension to the petitioner, as
per Family pension Scheme, 1964 and further release the
financial assistance as per Rule 3 of Rules 2006. This
exercise shall be completed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ”
2 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -3-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
5. The appellant-department filed RA-CW No. 342 of 2018
seeking review of the order (supra), which became dismissed on
13.1.2020.
6. The appellants filed LPA No 1 of 2021 challenging the
order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge concerned,
which is pending adjudication.
7. Since the order dated 12.4.2016 remained purportedly
uncomplied, thereby respondent No. 1 herein preferred COCP No. 2922
of 2022, before this Court, with a prayer therein to intiate contempt
proceedings against the contemnors concerned, thus on account of the
appellants herein purportedly wilfully disobeying the order (supra)
passed by this Court. It has been further alleged therein, that even after
the passing of the order dated 12.4.2016, the respondents concerned
have not complied with the directions of this Court, which amounts to
wilful disobedience on their part.
8. Since in compliance of the order dated 12.4.2016, the
appellants had filed compliance affidavit dated 12.1.2024, wherein it
was stated that financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 18,31,632/- had
already been paid and that since qua disbursement of the family pension
to the respondent, rather the matter had been referred to Accountant
General, Haryana. Therefore, vide order dated 12.1.2024, made by the
learned Contempt Bench concerned, the contempt petition bearing
COCP No. 2922 of 2018 was dismissed. The relevant portions of the
said order become extracted hereinafter.
“Pursuant to previous order dated 22.11.2023, Mr. Rajiv
Ranjan, Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana,3 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DBCACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -4-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014Labour Department is present in the Court and filed
compliance report by way of his affidavit. The same is taken on
record. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
the financial assistance has already been paid to the petitioner
and qua the family pension, the matter has been referred to
Accountant General, Haryana for further compliance, subject
to decision in LPA-1-2021
In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground
to continue with the present petition any more.
Dismissed.
However, if any grievance of the petitioner is left un-
addressed, she would be at liberty to raise the same in any
alternate remedy, but in accordance with law. ”
9. Respondent No. 1 again filed the instant COCP No. 1934
of 2024 before this Court, with a prayer therein to intiate contempt
proceedings against the contemnors concerned, thus on account of the
appellants herein purportedly wilfully disobeying the order dated
12.4.2016, inasmuch as the family pension becoming not released to
her.
10. The learned Contempt Court concerned, vide order dated
29.10.2024, passed the hereinafter order upon the COCP (supra).
“Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, on instructions
from Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Assistant, prays for two weeks’ more
time for compliance with respect to the remaining payment
towards interest to the petitioner for the delayed disbursal of
benefits.
List on 19.11.2024.
It is made clear that in case the needful is not done, the
officer(s) concerned shall remain present in Court on the date
fixed and would be liable to pay litigation costs to the petitioner
to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- from his / her own pocket. ”
11. The order (supra), passed by the learned Single Judge
(Contempt Court) has caused pain to the appellants herein and has led
them to file thereagainst the instant appeal before this Court.
4 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -5-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
Submissions of the learned counsels for the appellants
12. The learned counsels for the appellants have argued before
this Court that the Hon’ble Contempt Bench rather has exceeded its
jurisdiction by imposing costs of Rs. 50,000/- that too, on the first date
of hearing of the contempt petition. They further submit that the order
imposing costs of Rs. 50,000/- is incidental to and/or is inextricably
connected with an order qua the imposition of fine of Rs. 2,000/- as
mandated in Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore,
it is argued, that the said imposed fine amount, that too at the very
threshold of the contempt petition, thus tantamounts to the imposition of
punishment, upon the present appellants. Resultantly, it is argued, that
as such, the instant appeal is maintainable before this Court, and, that
the impugned order dated 29.10.2024, as passed by the learned Single
Judge, be quashed and set aside.
13. Reiteratedly, the learned counsels contend, with much
vigour before this Court, that when as such the impugned order is
proclived towards imposing punishment upon the contemnors, and, that
too, without asking from the appellants rather a well reasoned
explanation qua therebys compliance theretos thus wanting. Therefore,
it is further argued, that since the appellants may have a permissible
valid defence rather for accounting for the delay, if any, in the making
of compliance to the order (supra), besides it is also contended that even
if the order (supra) embodied a clear obeyable mandamus, therebys too,
some opportunity may have been granted to the appellants to mete
compliance thereto. However, since neither any explanation has been
5 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -6-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
asked to be furnished by the learned Contempt Court, from the
appellants rather for the delay, if any, in the makings of compliance to
the supra order, nor when any opportunity, if required for seeking
extension of time for making compliance thereto, thus became granted.
Consequently, it is argued that in a most slipshod and arbitrary manner,
the learned Contempt Court, has proceeded to make the order (supra),
which as stated supra, is proclived towards imposing punishment, upon
the present appellants, besides therebys it intends to, without making the
requisite discernments from the records, rather create a right in the
respondent to seek enforcement of the order (supra), despite may be it
not being complyable at all.
14. In nutshell, the learned counsels for the appellants have
argued, that therebys the instant case is covered within the domain of
principle No. IV of the verdict made by Hon’ble Apex Court, in case
titled as “Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. And others V.
Chunilal Nanda and others” reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399. The said
principle is extracted hereinafter.
IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on
the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the
exercise of ‘jurisdiction to punish for contempt’ and therefore,
not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception
is where such direction or decision is incidental to or
inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt,
in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also
encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
15. In addition, the learned counsels for the appellants have
argued, that the instant case is not covered within the domain of
principle No. V of the judgment (supra), as at the outset, the learned
6 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -7-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
Contempt Court, did not decide any issue, nor made any direction
relating to the merits of the dispute, wherebys alone the said decision
was open to a challenge in an intra-court appeal, than in an appeal filed
within the domain of principle No. IV.
16. The reason which the learned counsel for the appellants,
thus assigns for making the above submission, is grooved in the factum
that, since the pleadings were not complete at the stage of making of the
order (supra). Therefore, only when the pleadings are complete,
whereafters upon making well informed discernments of the pleadings,
thus when subsequently a well informed decision or direction becomes
passed, rather covering the merits of the dispute emerging amongst the
parties, thereupon alone the impugned directions may have been
covered within the ambit of principle No. V, as enclosed in
Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd.‘s case (supra). Consequently,
the learned counsels submit, that the instant case is not covered within
the ambit of principle No. V, as enclosed in the judgment (supra)
rendered by the Apex Court, rather the instant case is covered within the
ambit of principle No. IV of the judgment (supra).
Inferences of this Court
17. In Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1971’) provisions whereof
becomes extracted hereinafter, it becomes mandated, that an appeal
against an order passed by the Contempt Bench concerned, is
maintainable, but yet only against such an order or a decision, as
becomes made by the Contempt Bench concerned, wherebys
7 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -8-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
punishment for contempt becomes recorded.
“19. Appeals.–(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any
order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction “to punish for contempt”–
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a
Bench of not less than two judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the
Supreme Court:
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of
the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal
shall lie to the Supreme Court.
(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that–
(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against
be suspended;
(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail;
and
(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has
not purged his contempt.
(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an
appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to
prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of
the powers conferred by sub-section (2).
(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed–
(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court,
within thirty days;
(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty
days, from the date of the order appealed against.”
18. Before proceeding to determine the validity of the making
of the impugned order, it is necessary to initially extract the apposite
regulatory guidelines, as become underlined in the judgment rendered
by the Apex Court in case titled as Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd
and another versus Sachidanand Dass and another reported in 1995
Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 465. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgments (supra) become extracted hereinafter.
“2. The learned single Judge of the High Court by his
order dated 10.1.1992 quashed the order of termination of8 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DBCACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -9-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014the services of the first respondent, by the appellants and
directed his reinstatement and payment of back-salary.
Appellants preferred an appeal to the Division Bench and
also sought a stay, pending appeal, of the operation of the
learned single Judge’s order. The Division Bench did not
take up the appeal for admission nor considered the prayer
for interlocutory stay. In the meanwhile, on the allegation
that the learned single Judge’s order had not been obeyed,
the first respondent moved for initiation of proceedings for
contempt against the appellants pursuant to which the High
Court directed the Chairman of the first appellant to appear
in person so that the complaint of contempt be proceeded
with.
3. 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 as proper. If, without considering the prayer
for stay, obedience to the Single Judge’s order was insisted
upon at the pain of committal for contempt, the appellants
may find, as has now happened, the very purpose of appeal
and the prayer for interlocutory stay infructuous. 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 be 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 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, this is the view taken in
State of J. and K. v. Mohammad Yaqoob Khan, (1992) 4
SCC 167.
19. It has been forthrightly stated in the verdict (supra) that the
contempt action has to be sparingly drawn, and, is to be avoided to be
9 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -10-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
drawn, as a measure to coerce the purported errant litigant to make
compliances with certain directions or orders, especially when the relief
granted by the writ Court becomes appealed against, whereupon the
outcome of the availed remedy by the purported errant litigant rather is
prima facie required to be awaited. Moreover, thereins also occurs a
trite underscoring to the effect, that the action for contempt has to
become quartered within the tritely settled contours, inasmuch as,
immense care and caution is required to be exercised by the Contempt
Court, as ultimately the objective of rearing of an able contempt
petition, thus is to ensure the maintaining of the majesty, and, dignity of
self speaking binding orders/directions passed by the Courts of law.
20. Furthermore, the Apex Court in a judgment rendered in
case titled as State of J and K versus Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and others
reported in (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 167 has held as under:-
6. 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.
7. 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 the10 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DBCACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -11-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014court 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 respondent was
entitled to raise a plea of non-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 (read with the compromise)
has already been discharged. The dispute, therefore, will be
covered by Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. 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 premature, 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.”
21. The further entwined therewith issue, which is required to
be also decided is whether the Contempt Court, can substitute itself into
an Executing Court, and, that too when an appeal against the relevant
order/direction is subjudice. In the above regard, the Apex Court in case
titled as R.N.Dey versus Bhagyabati Pramanik and others reported in
(2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 400, has held as under:-
“7. We may reiterate that weapon of contempt is not to be
used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for
execution of the decree or implementation of an order for
which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion
given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Court’s
dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no11 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DBCACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -12-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014right to insist that Court should exercise such jurisdiction as
contempt is between a contemnor and the Court. It is true that
in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending
and has ordered that it should be heard along with the First
Appeal. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that under the
coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be directed
to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by
asserting that claimants were not the owners of the property in
question and that decree was obtained by suppressing the
material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that claimants are
entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by
the trial Court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at
the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the
said award wherein the State can or may contend that the
award is nullity. In such a situation, as there was no wilful or
deliberate disobedience of the order, the initiation of contempt
proceedings was wholly unjustified.”
22. The further entwined therewith issue, which is required to
become also adjudicated, is that, whether the Contempt Court can grant
substantive relief, despite the same not being covered by the
order/judgment, besides especially when the apposite order/judgment
rather evidently is the subject matter of the corrective/remedial judicial
proceedings. In the above regard, the relevant guidelines become
embodied in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as
Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and natural
Gas Corporate Limited and others versus M. George Ravishekaran
and others reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 373. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment (supra) becomes extracted
hereinafter
“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this
Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power
12 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -13-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected,
could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with
commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a
sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest
of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than
not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self
determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in
respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not,
therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is
alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are
explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought
to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of
the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of
equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while
considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court
in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not
trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has
been already expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such
an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would
appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at
the bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak
Nath Ganguly and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 352, V.M.Manohar
Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju and Another, (2004) 13 SCC 610,
Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative
Society Ltd. v Gautam Goswami and others (2008) 3 SCC 339
and Union of India and Others v. Subedar Devassy PV 12
(2006) 1 SCC 613.”
23. Therefore, the maintainability of the instant appeal against
the order (supra) made by the learned Contempt Bench, but is required
13 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -14-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
to be both delved into, besides is required to be adjudicated upon.
24. Be that as it may, this Court is also required to impart a
signification to the statutory coinage “jurisdiction to punish for
contempt” as occurs in sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1971.
25. The meaning to be imparted to the statutory coinage (supra)
is not, that the contemnor has to await the pronouncement of
punishment upon him. Contrarily the meaning to be imparted to the
statutory coinage (supra), is that, any order or decision recorded by the
learned Single Bench of this Court, while exercising contempt
jurisdiction, rather manifesting any proclivities towards ultimately
punishing the alleged contemnor for contempt. Resultantly therebys the
apposite maneuverings (supra), as are also clearly discernible from the
making of the apposite order, thus makings the apposite appeal to be
maintainable before the Appellate Court.
26. The coinage “to punish for contempt” which exists
subsequent to the coinage “any order or decision of the High Court” is
an expression, whose effective impact cannot be restricted to the era of
ultimate awardings of punishment, as therebys any vitiated order passed
during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, despite existence of
valid extenuating explications (supra), thus well forbidding the learned
Single Benches, from initiating contempt action, besides when for
tangible reasons, rather apposite extensions of time are accordable, thus
for making compliance(s) with the order alleged to be purportedly
disobeyed, but may yet become also ill-countenanced. Resultantly
therebys if yet this Court also overlooks the beneficent mitigating
14 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -15-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
effects of all the possible, thus permissible extenuating pleas,
thereupons the said raised possible extenuating pleas, as become earlier
arbitrarily rejected by the learned Single Bench of this Court, but would
also similarly become arbitrarily rejected even by this Court.
27. Resultantly therebys the learned Single Bench of this Court
appears to rather than, as expostulated in verdicts (supra), that contempt
jurisdiction is to be sparingly exercised or becoming potentialized only
for upholding the majesty, and, dignity of the obeyable directions or the
orders passed by the Courts of law, thus through initiating contempt
action against the persons concerned, but contrarily rather has
whimsically and arbitrarily miskewed the contempt jurisdiction.
28. Ultimately, the preponderant reason, for this Court
concluding that the above submission addressed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the respondent, as appertains to the maintainability
of the present appeal, is required to be rejected, whereas, in this Court
declaring that the instant appeal becomes maintainable, thus becomes
hinged upon the hereinafter principles, relating to the maintainability of
appeals by the Appellate Court concerned, principles whereof, become
engrafted in paragraph No.11 of the verdict made by Hon’ble Apex
Court, in case titled as “Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. And
others V. Chunilal Nanda and others” reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399,
paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
“11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to
appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be
summarized thus :
I. An appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an
15 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DBCACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -16-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its
jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt.
II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for
contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor
an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order
acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under
Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be
open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.
III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide
whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so,
what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto.
In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or
decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between
the parties.
IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on
the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the
exercise of ‘jurisdiction to punish for contempt’ and therefore,
not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception
is where such direction or decision is incidental to or
inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt,
in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also
encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or
makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute
between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned
Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal),
or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India (in other cases).
The first point is answered accordingly.”
29. Exceptions to the arguments raised (supra) by the learned
counsel for the respondent against the maintainability of the present
appeal, thus become well grooved in principle No. IV, whereins, it is
16 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -17-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
expounded that any direction or decision which is incidental to or is
inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, therebys,
the said does make the contempt appeal maintainable. Conspicuously
also when for all the reasons (supra), the learned Contempt Bench
concerned, through the making of the impugned order, has evidently
proclived towards punishing the contemnors for contempt, wherebys
also the instant appeal is maintainable.
30. Moreover also when through the making of the impugned
order, the learned Contempt Court of this Court has prohibited the
appellants from either asking for extensions of time, if required, besides
also has untenably restrained them, thus from purveying justifiable
reasons for the order (supra) made by this Court, may be not requiring
preemptory compliance, rather may be for the reason that the directions
made thereins were not well banked upon the precedents referred to
thereins. Importantly also when an LPA had been filed against the
decision (supra) recorded by this Court, whereupon it became enjoined
upon the learned Contempt Bench to rather than at the very threshold
make the impugned order, thus await the outcome of the LPA (supra).
31. Lastly, the principles of law which are required to hereafter
become considered to be applied by the learned Contempt Court, are the
ones which are stated in the instant case and also are the ones, as
become underlined in the verdict rendered by this Court in CACP No.
20 of 2024, titled as T.V.S.N. Prasad and others versus Resham Singh.
32. Furthermore, this Court on 14.11.2024, had passed the
17 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -18-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
hereinafter extracted order-
"x x x x
Adjourned to 27.11.2024.
In the meantime, and till further orders, the operation of the
impugned order dated 29.10.2024 shall remain stayed.”
33. However, despite this Court making the hereinabove
extracted order, the learned Contempt Bench of this Court proceeded to
make the hereinafter extracted order on 24.11.2024.
“x x x x
Just to straighten the records, the undertaking with respect to
the remaining payment towards interest on the delayed
disbursal of benefits payable to the petitioner was made by the
respondents themselves of their own volition, based on
instructions from their own officials and no application
whatsoever was filed on their behalf about seeking withdrawal
of the undertaking extended on 29.10.2024, which was
apparently made in view of the decision rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Bal Kishore Mody Vs. Arun
Kumar Singh” reported as, (2001) 10 SCC 174, whereby the
respondents could be made liable to pay interest on the delayed
payment of the retiral benefits from the date it became due till
the date of actual payment.
x x x x”
34. It is but trite, and, clear that when this Court had till further
orders stayed the operation of the impugned order, therebys but
necessarily, the learned Contempt Bench of this Court but was
concomitantly restrained from drawing further proceedings. However,
the learned Contempt Bench of this Court in making the above extracted
order, and, that too during the pendency of the instant contempt appeal
before this Court, has done so on a sheer misreading of the order (supra)
wherebys upon the operation of the impugned order became stayed,
whereupon but concomitantly the further proceedings were also
required to be not undertaken by the learned Contempt Bench
concerned. The said misreading has also further breached the supra
18 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -19-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
expostulated principle, that until the LPA Bench, thus pronouncing the
apposite verdict on the validity of the challenge made to the supra
operative portion of the order recorded by the Writ Court concerned, thus
thereupto no proceedings for contempt are drawable against the alleged
contemnors. Resultantly therebys through the supra made order thus
during the pendency of the LPA, has resulted in the learned Contempt
Bench concerened, assuming onto itself the jurisdiction of the LPA
Bench.
35. Furthermore, it also appears that though the judgment of
the Apex Court in case titled as Bal Kishore Mody versus Arun Kumar
Singh reported in (2001) 10 SCC 174, rendered in the above extracted
part of the order rendered by the learned Contempt Bench on
19.11.2024, became precedent for the renderings of the supra extracted
order by the Writ Court concerned, but when a challenge to the said
operative part is made by the present appellants, therebys the
applicability or non-applicability of the said precedent to the facts at
hand, was to be done only by the LPA Bench, and, was not to be done
by the learned Contempt Bench. Since the learned Contempt Bench of
this Court, has thereby assumed the jurisdiction of an LPA Bench,
therebys the said assumption of jurisdiction, is an ill assumed
jurisdiction, whereupons, the learned Contempt Bench has proceeded to
execute the verdict (supra), whereby, it has substituted itself as an
Executing Court, which it could do but only after the supra extracted
verdict made upon writ petition (supra) becoming affirmed by the LPA
Bench, but after the LPA Bench dismissing the LPA, as raised
thereagainst before it.
19 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -20-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
36. Despite repeated insistences being made upon the learned
Contempt Bench of this Court to comply with the supra principles, yet
the learned Contempt Bench of this Court has repeatedly failed to do so.
Therefore, the learned Contempt Bench of this Court is directed to
ensure that hereafter strict compliances become made to the supra
principles, rather than in a slipshod and arbitrary manner, thus orders
alike the ones which are impugned before this Court, thus becoming
passed.
37. Conspicuously also when the present appeal is but a
continuation of the apposite contempt petition, therefore, this Court
alone held the competent jurisdiction to decide both the contempt
petition as well as the appeal as has arisen therefroms.
38. Last but not the least in terms of the provisions of Section
23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provisions whereof become
extracted hereinafter, wherebys the procedures for regulating the
exercise of contempt jurisdiction becomes permitted to be created by the
High Court, thus this High Court has formulated the relevant procedural
rules which become nomenclatured as the Contempt of Court (Punjab
and Haryana) Rules, 1974 (for short ‘the Rules of 1974’).
“23. Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules.
—
The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court,
may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act,
providing for any matter relating to its procedure.”
39. The relevant provisions which are of striking importance in
the instant case become embodied in Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules of
1974, rules whereof become extracted hereinafter.
“9. In the case of a civil contempt other than a contempt
20 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DBCACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -21-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014referred to in section 14, the High Court may take action
(a) on its own motion; or
(b) on a petition presented by the party aggrieved; or
(c) in the case of any civil contempt of a subordinate court,
on reference made to it by that Court.
10. (1) In the case of civil contempt, other than a contempt
referred to in section 14, the person charged may file his
affidavit by way of reply to the charge and shall serve a copy
thereof on the petitioner on his counsel at least seven days
before the date of hearing.
(2) No further return, affidavit or document shall be filed
except with the leave of the High Court.
11. In the case of a civil contempt, the High Court may
determine the matter of charge either on affidavits filed or on
such further evidence as may be taken by itself or recorded by
a subordinate court in pursuance of a direction made by it, and
pass such order as the justice of the case requires, having
regard to the provisions of sections 12 and 13 of the Act.”
40. Importantly it is stated in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1974 that
when proceedings qua commission of any purported civil contempt,
other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, thus become launched,
therebys the person charged is required to file an affidavit by way of
reply to the charge.
41. As such, the underpinnings which generate therefroms are
that the successful trial of the formulated charge appertaining to the
commission of any alleged civil contempt, thus is to be made, only after
satisfaction becoming drawn by the learned Contempt Bench, that the
person so charged but makes a feeble and weak plea in his reply on
affidavit, rather for justifying the purported contumacy, as become
allegedly committed by him. Resultantly therebys, since at the very
threshold the learned Contempt Bench, even without framing a charge
appertaining to the alleged commission of civil contempt, and, also
subsequently without proceeding to consider the justifiable extenuating
cause, as would become echoed in the reply on affidavit, wherebys the
21 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007255-DB
CACP No. 27 of 2024 (O&M) -22-
in COCP No. 1934 of 2024
in CWP No. 23933 of 2014
contemnor may be amenable for being discharged, rather reiteratedly
has proceeded to conclude that civil contempt has been committed.
Resultantly, in terms of the supra rules formulated by the High Court,
the learned Contempt Bench of this Court but has, at the very threshold
rather derogated from the supra stated established procedure, thus in its
recording a finding, that the present appellants indulged in
contumacious conduct.
Final order
42. Hence, there is merit in the instant appeal and the same is
allowed, and the impugned order dated 29.10.2024, as becomes drawn
by learned Single Bench is quashed, and, set aside, and, the present
appellants are discharged accordingly.
43. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also
disposed of.
44. A copy of this order be forthwith sent to the learned
Contempt Bench concerned, for subsequently complete adherence being
made to the above expostulated principles of law, and, it is expected that
hereafter the supra norms of propriety and judicial decorum remain
uneroded.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
January 16th, 2025
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
22 of 22
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 00:13:34 :::
[ad_1]
Source link