The contempt application was disposed of because the respondents had complied with the prior order. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent to find no willful disobedience.
The contempt application disposed of with liberty to challenge the reasons for compliance before an appropriate forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case(Civil) No. 839 of 2016
Angilina Lakra w/o Late Binodik Lakra, Resident of village Getalshud, P.O. & P.S. Getalshud, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand
… … Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
For the Petitioner: M/s Ashok Kr. Sinha For the Respondents: M/s D.K. Dubey
03/Dated 6th January, 2017
1. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides it appears that the order dated 27th October, 2015 passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 2440 of 2014, for non-compliance of which this contempt application was filed, has now been complied with and the respondents have passed reasoned orders dated 27th October, 2016 and 26th December, 2016, which are at Annexures A and A/1 respectively to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents.
2. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & ors. , as reported in (2014)16 SCC 204, especially at paragraph no.12 thereof, as under :
“ 12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful'. The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. “Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
-2-
3. In view of the submissions made by both sides and looking to the Annexures to the counter filed by the respondents and in the light of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it appears that there is no willfull disobedience of the order dated 27th October, 2015 passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 2440 of 2014.
4. Hence, this contempt application is, hereby, disposed of with liberty reserved with the applicant to challenge the reasoned order passed by the respondents before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.
(D.N.Patel, J.)
s.m.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disobedience of a previous order was 'wilful' sufficient to warrant punishment for contempt.
Whether a contempt application should be dismissed when the order in question has been complied with.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & ors.Relied on¶12
(2014)16 SCC 204 · Who else cites this
Angilina Lakra w/o Late Binodik Lakra
The State of Jharkhand
The Executive Engineer, Laghu Bitrani Anchal Adityapur
D.N. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
