Dhruv Narayan Rai Vs Bhaskar Mishra, District Inspector of Schools and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

Dhruv Narayan Rai Vs Bhaskar Mishra, District Inspector of Schools and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties committed contempt by alleged non-compliance of the writ court's order dated 13.04.2017 in Writ-A No. 15449 of 2017. +1 more

Court's answer

The orders of the writ court were limited to directing the D.I.O.S. to take a decision on the petitioner's claim and other claims regarding his continuation in the institution and payment of future salary; once the D.I.O.S. had taken a decision and there was no other direction to the College management in the writ petition, this Court was not required to travel beyond the directions given by the writ court.

Ratio / Principle

The limitations imposed while exercising contempt jurisdiction are only to get the orders of the writ court executed; the contempt court has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the writ issued in favour of a person, and the submission based on the earlier contempt proceedings that action would be taken against the management if bills were not sent is not binding on the contempt court.

Key takeaways

In view of the above legal position, the contempt petition fails and is dismissed.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt — alleged non-compliance of order dated 13.04.2017 in Writ-A No. 15449 of 2017, whereby the writ court directed the D.I.O.S. (respondent no. 3) to consider the petitioner's claim and the rival claim regarding his continuation in the institution and payment of future salary, and to pass appropriate orders within four months — the D.I.O.S. had taken a decision on 27.08.2019 calling upon the management to submit bills of arrears of salary, and an earlier contempt petition (No. 2632 of 2018) had been consigned to records — the orders of the writ court were limited to directing the D.I.O.S. to take a decision; there was no other direction to the College management — contempt jurisdiction is confined to getting the orders of the writ court executed; the contempt court has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the writ issued in favour of a person — contempt petition dismissed.

Court No. - 36

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3670 of 2020

Applicant :- Dhruv Narayan Rai Opposite Party :- Bhaskar Mishra, District Inspector Of Schools And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gautam Baghel,Om Prakash Singh

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the applicant.

This contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of order passed in Writ-A No.15449 of 2017, wherein vide order dated 13.04.2017, the writ court observed as under:

"In case the petitioner has been paid salary throughout from the State fund, without assigning any reason salary could not have been stopped. However, since the matter is already pending before the D.I.O.S., it would be appropriate to direct the D.I.O.S.-respondent no. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner as well as rival claim with regard to continuation of the petitioner in the institution and payment of future salary. The D.I.O.S. will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as far as possible, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before it.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of."

Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that in another contempt petition bearing contempt application (civil) No.2632 of 2018 vide order dated 12.09.2019, it was informed by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.) that he has already taken a decision on 27.08.2019 and has asked the management to submit bills relating to arrears of salary.

In view of such facts, the contempt court observed as under:-

"Since a decision has now been taken by the District Inspector of Schools, though with considerable delay, therefore, this Court, taking a lenient view, does not consider it proper to proceed further in the matter.

The contempt petition is accordingly consigned to records."

Thus, it is apparent that orders of the writ court are limited to the extent that it directs the D.I.O.S. to take a decision on the claims of the petitioner as well as other claims with regard to continuation of the petitioner in the Institution and payment of future salary. Once, D.I.O.S. has taken a decision and there is no other direction to the management of the College, in the writ

petition. Therefore, this Court is not required to travel beyond the directions given by the writ court.

In view of such facts, even the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in contempt application (civil) No.2632 of 2018, it is mentioned that if bills are not sent, then action will be taken against the management is not binding on this Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, because the limitations imposed while exercising the contempt jurisdiction are only to get the orders of the writ court executed and the contempt court has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the writ issued in favour of a person.

In view of such legal position, contempt petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.10.2020 Ashutosh