The High Court Bench dismissed the Special Appeal filed against an order upholding a contempt petition. The Single Judge found deliberate non-compliance by the appellant but adopted a liberal view by directing the appellant to pay the intervening salary instead of imposing imprisonment. The Division Bench found no reason to interfere.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Civil No. 10/2018
Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Badri Lal Sharma, aged about 43 years, presently working as Additional Director (Administration), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr.Deepak Bishnoi for Mr.NM Lodha, Advocate General |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr.Sanjay Mehla |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Judgment
17/07/2018
Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act so as the appeal against the order dated 17th February, 2018.
It is a case where a contempt petition was filed by the non-appellant No.1 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20th December, 2017, that too, intentionally. The notice on the contempt petition was issued on 25th January, 2018. An additional
(2 of 3)
[SAC-10/2018]
copy of the petition was served to Mr.SK Gupta, Additional Advocate General. The contempt petition was then listed on 09th February, 2018. The compliance of the order was not made even by the aforesaid date thus this Court passed the order to call the contemnor on the next date, if compliance is not made by that time. The contempt petition was then listed on 16th February, 2018. The appellant came out with compliance of the order a day before the aforesaid date. Learned Single Judge took it nothing but deliberate act of the appellant not to comply order of the Court within time frame. It is moreso when order of the Court was against transfer of the non-appellant No.1. Pursuant to the order dated 20th December, 2017, the non-appellant No.1 gave joining to allow her to work but no action was taken by the appellant to comply the direction. The compliance was made when direction was given to keep the appellant present in the Court, if compliance is not made.
In the facts and circumstances described above, learned Single Judge found it to be nothing but a deliberate act of the appellant not to comply the directions till the appellant was called in the Court. It is also not that the appellant tendered unconditional apology for the aforesaid thus learned Single Judge could have passed order inflicting punishment, as given under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act of 1971”) but it took a liberal view. To balance the equities, a direction was given regarding payment of salary of the intervening period of service of the non-appellant No.1 by noneelse but the appellant himself. It is to avoid burden on the public exchequer due to default of the appellant to carry out the direction of the Court at the first instance.
(3 of 3) [SAC-10/2018]
We find that if the order would have been passed by learned Single Judge strictly as per Section 12 of the Act of 1971, the appellant could have been punished with simple imprisonment upto six months with penalty, but, instead of doing it, a just and proper order has been passed by the Court thus we do not find any reason to cause interference therein.
It is looking to the fact that despite order and judgment of this Court, compliance is not made by officers of the State Government at their own, which results in filing of contempt petitions burdening the Court unnecessarily. The compliance is not made even after issuance of notices on the contempt petitions. The Court is left with no option but to call the Officers to remain present in case of non-compliance. This attitude of the Officers is deprecated. Looking to the attitude of the appellant in this case, a direction has been given for disciplinary action against against him. We do not find any reason to cause interference even therein.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed so as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J (M.N. BHANDARI),J
Preeti/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order in a contempt petition regarding non-compliance.
Whether the Single Judge erred in taking a liberal view instead of imposing punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay should be allowed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Sharma
Suman Kumari
Subhash Kholia
The State of Rajasthan
Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Dinesh Chandra Somani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
