Appeal against conviction for contempt of court arising from disobedience of a High Court order. The High Court quashed the conviction as nothing survived in the underlying proceedings.
Conviction of the appellants for contempt of court set aside and impugned order quashed.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CACP No.2 of 2002(O&M) Date of decision: 22.10.2009
Sh. R.N. Gupta & others.
-----Appellants
Vs.
Harbans Singh and another.
-----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present:Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the appellants.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for respondents.
ORDER:
CACP No.2 of 2002
2
dated 18.10.2001. The appellants were held guilty of contempt and fine of Rs.2,000/- each was imposed.
“We are prima facie of the view that the appellants have not committed any contempt of court. We say so because the directions given in CWP No.5290 of 1996 did not explicitly contain a direction that the order in Saravjit’s case should be applicable in the petitioner’s case as well. Saravjit’s case is CWP No.11697 of 1995 decided on May 6, 1995.
Therefore, the petitioner has the option of either filing a CM in CWP No.5290 of 1996 to seek a direction in accordance with Saravjit’s case or filing a representation before the department.
The petitioner is allowed to file a representation within two weeks which shall be decided within one month, meanwhile, the case is adjourned to 30.10.2008.”
“Under the orders dated September 15, 2008, the writ petitioners, who were working in the Administrative Wing of the Agricultural Department, had been allowed to file a representation within two weeks and this was to be decided within one month. The writ petitioners filed representation within the prescribed period whereupon the Financial Commissioner Development, Punjab passed the order dated October 31, 2008 rejecting the representation of the writ petitioners.
CACP No.2 of 2002
3
The rejection of the representation means that equal pay for equal work is being denied to the writ petitioners and parity of pay between the writ petitioners and the officers belonging to Class-II of the Administrative Wing has not been accepted.
When the original Writ Petition No.5590 of 2006 (Statistical Wing) was decided but there was no explicit direction that the case of the writ petitioners would be covered by Saravjit’s case which had been decided earlier.
In view of the above, the appellants seek more time to re-consider the whole issue and to pass a fresh order by reviewing their order dated October 31, 2008.
Adjourned to January 14, 2009.
Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Special Secretary of this Court.”
favour of the respondents.
order of conviction of the appellants is set aside.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
October 22, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against conviction for contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable.
Whether the impugned conviction order should be quashed given the status of the administrative proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sh. R.N. Gupta & others
Harbans Singh
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
GURDEV SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
