Bihar Veterinary Association v. Dr. Navin Chandra Mishra & Ors.

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 10 12-09-2013 We have heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. In LPA No. 534 of 2007 disposed on 11.07.2007, Patna High Court MJC No.3015 of 2012 (10) dt.12-09-2013 2 the controversy related to a notification dated 20.03.2001 withdrawing non-practicing allowance payable to Veterinary Doctor in violations of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge held that before withdrawing the benefit no notice was required upon challenge, the Division Bench held that whether the writ petitioners indulged in private practice or not had to be first verified and sufficient opportunity was required to be given to them by way of a show cause notice. The withdrawal without that opportunity was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. The order of withdrawal dated 20.03.2001 was set aside but with liberty to the authorities for proceeding afresh after giving due notice. MJC No. 2908 of 2008 was filed alleging non- compliance of the order dated 11.07.2007 in LPA No. 534 of

2007. The Court observed that even though no limitation was fixed for compliance, it had to be completed within reasonable time. Liberty was given to comply the order by 10.05.2010 positively, failing which the petitioners could initiate a fresh contempt proceeding. It was observed that the opposite parties were not expected to be so deviant as to invite second petition for contempt. The contempt application was disposed on

03.03.2010. On 11.08.2011 referring to the order in LPA No. 534 of 2007, the order stopping non-practicing allowance was recalled and status quo ante as on 15.04.2000 granting non- Patna High Court MJC No.3015 of 2012 (10) dt.12-09-2013 3 practicing allowance restored. The order in LPA 534 of 2007 stood complied as there was no other direction given in the same. The petitioners themselves acknowledged payment of non-practicing allowance till 31.03.2007. The controversy thereafter emanated with regard to payment for non-practicing allowance and whether the petitioners exceed the maximum limit of Rs. 29,500/- calculated in the manner provided by letter dated 15.04.2000. Clarification came to be issued on 15.12.2011. In the mean time aggrieved by non-payment of the non-practicing allowance MJC No. 2098 of 2010 was filed alleging disobedience of order dated 11.07.2007 in LPA No. 534 of 2007. The Division Bench referred to a fresh Government instruction dated 15.12.2011 that the controversy had been clarified and payment should now be made. What may or may not be the effect and relief of the order dated 15.12.2011, we are satisfied to hold that it was certainly beyond the purview of the order and directions in LPA No. 534 of 2007 read with the order in MJC No. 2908 of 2008. If the decision to restore non-practicing allowance as on

15.04.2000 had not been taken and the opposite parties had stood by the notification for cancellation dated 20.03.2011, undoubtedly, it would have constituted contempt for willful disobedience. We are not sanguine that the scope of the order in Patna High Court MJC No.3015 of 2012 (10) dt.12-09-2013 4 LPA No. 534 of 2007, read along with MJC No. 2908 of 2008, could have been enlarged in MJC No. 2098 of 2010. If there is any controversy with regard to the mode, method and manner for calculation of the non-practicing allowance or the quantification of the same after restoration of non-practicing allowance on 11.08.2011, it is quite obviously a fresh cause of action. We cannot even hold that such quantification of mode, method or manner is a consequential step to the order dated 11.07.2007 in LPA No. 534 of 2007 as all that order stated was to strike down the withdrawal. We do not consider the present an appropriate case for exercise of contempt jurisdiction for the reasons discussed hereinabove. The limits of jurisdiction in a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act was noticed in (2004) 13 SCC 610 (V.M. Manohar Prasad V. N. Ratnam Raju) observing:- proceedings “7………There is no doubt about the position under the law that in contempt further directions could be issued by the court. In case it is found that there is violation of the order passed by the Court the Court may punish the contemnor otherwise notice of contempt is to be discharge. An order passed in the contempt petition, could not be a supplemental order to the main order granting relief.” This however does not prevent the petitioners from pursuing the remedy appropriately in a freshly constituted writ application, if they be of the view that the correct methodology for quantification of Non Practicing Allowance after Patna High Court MJC No.3015 of 2012 (10) dt.12-09-2013 5 restoration has not been followed and that be any error in the same. The contempt application is disposed. P.K./- (Navin Sinha, J) (Vikash Jain, J)