The High Court doubted its concurrent jurisdiction to intervene in the legality of an administrative order in a contempt proceeding. It dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the compliance of a writ court order, leaving the substantive issues open for appropriate redress.
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. (Cvl.) Case No.33 of 2021
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
--------For the Petitioners : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. SC-II
04/17.03.2021 The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.
This contempt application is for willful and deliberate noncompliance of the order dated 24.10.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.5297 of 2019.
Ms. Neelam Tiwary, learned Sr. SC-II appearing for the opposite parties by referring to show cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.4 which contains an order appended as Annexure-A has submitted that the order has already been complied with in its letter and spirit.
Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order as appended as Annexure-A dated 21.06.2019 passed in Forest Encroachment Case No.18 of 2018, cannot be said to be compliance of the order in its letter and spirit.
According to him, although, the reference of service of notice has been made and no reply having been filed showing the title over the land has been referred but such stipulation made in the impugned order is absolutely incorrect as because due objection has been filed along with relevant documents to establish the title of the petitioner but that has not been taken into consideration.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.
However, serious objection has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the legality and propriety of the decision as has been taken in pursuant to the order dated 24.10.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.5297 of 2019 but according to the considered view of this Court that Court of Contempt is having no jurisdiction to deal with the issue as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as because under the Contempt of Courts Act, the Constitutional Court has been conferred with the power to inflict the punishment upon the concerned authority against whom allegation of non-compliance of the order or disobedience of the order passed by the original court, if established.
Further, under the contempt jurisdiction, there cannot be any alteration or modification in the order passed by the original court.
Submission which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be tested, if the petitioner will approach before the appropriate Court or Forum, if the order dated 24.10.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.5297 of 2019 will be questioned.
The Contempt of Courts Act is only required to see the order passed by the original court has been complied with or not and Contempt of Court cannot go into the legality and propriety of the decision, if taken by the authority.
In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in the instant contempt case since the decision in terms of the order passed by the writ Court has been complied with.
Accordingly, the instant contempt case stands disposed of.
However, it is left open upon the petitioners to assail the order dated 21.06.2019 passed in Forest Encroachment Case No.18 of 2018 by the authority concerned before the appropriate Forum or before the Court of Law.
Needless to say that if the issue of limitation will be raised, the petitioner will be at liberty to take the ground of pendency of this writ petition which will be considered in accordance with Law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Rohit/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court of Contempt has jurisdiction to examine the legality and propriety of the substantive order alleged to have been disobeyed.
Whether the order passed by the original writ court in the contempt proceedings has been complied with in its letter and spirit.
Whether the petitioners are barred from approaching the appropriate forum due to the pendency of the writ petition.
Ramdhani Mahto
Deg Narayan Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
Kamal Kishore Sone
Amrendra Pratap Singh
Raj Kumar Shah
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court