Contempt Petition No. 581 of 2009 · High Court · 2009

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANAND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH CONTEMPT PETITION No.581 of 2009 ************1)R.Vincent, S/o.S.Rayar, No.438, Annanagar, Madarpakkam, Gummadipoondi, Gummadipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District.2)V.R.Saroja, No.59, S.N.Chetty Street, Royapuram, Chennai 18....PetitionersVs1)Maniksan, The Director, Central Institute of Fisheries, Nautical & Engineering Training, Ministry of Agriculture, (Department of Animal Husbandary & Dairying) Fine Arts Avenue, Kochi 682 016.2)A.Prakasam, Senior Administrative Officer, Central Institute of Fisheries, Nautical & Engineering Training, Ministry of Agriculture, (Department of Animal Husbandary & Dairying) Fine Arts Avenue, Kochi 682 016. ... RespondentsContempt Petition praying that this Court be pleasedto punish the respondents for disobeying the order of thisHon'ble Court dated 11.12.2007 and made in W.P.No.27855 of2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2The above Contempt Petition coming on this day beforethis Court for hearing in the presence of Mr.V.VijayShankar, Advocate for the petitioners herein; and uponreading the petition and affidavit of R.Vincent, filedherein; the Court made the following order:-The above contempt petition has been filed praying topunish the respondents for disobeying the order passed bythis Court in W.P.No.27855 of 2005, dated 11.12.2007.2. It has become a fashion now to file a contemptpetition indiscriminately, immediately after obtaining anorder, even for an observation made by the Court, withoutunderstanding the ramification of the contemptjurisdiction, in its proper perspective. Here is a case inwhich this Court on 11.12.2007 passed an order, which readsas follows:-" Therefore, the common order of the Tribunal andthe impugned order dated 12.2.2004 passed by thethird respondent are set aside and the writpetitions are allowed. It is brought to the noticeof this Court by the learned counsel for thepetitioners that Bhavani (2nd petitioner inW.P.No.16099 of 2005) and Saroja (1st petitioner inW.P.No.27855 of 2005) have already attainedsuperannuation on 30.9.2006 and 31.3.2007respectively and Rathinam (petitioner inW.P.No.13142 of 2005) has retired on 31.1.2007.The authorities are, therefore, directed to refundthe recovered amount to them. No costs.Consequently, connected WPMPs., are closed." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

33. When the contempt petition came up before thisCourt on 10.7.2009, it appears the Division Bench directedthe petitioners to send a letter to the respondents.Pursuant to the same, a letter dated 14.7.2009 has beensent to the respondents for compliance of the order dated11.12.2007. To that letter, immediately a reply has beensent by the respondents on 15.7.2009, which reads asfollows:-" Kindly refer to your letter/Notice dated11.7.2009 on the above subject. In this connection,it is informed that the representations submittedby Shri V.Rathinam, Mech. Supvr. (retd),Smt.V.R.Saroja, SSK (retd), Miss K.Bhavani,Jr.Clerk (retd) and Shri R.Vincent, Peon (retd)were already forwarded to our Headquarters Office,Kochi along with a copy of Judgment dated11.12.2007 of Hon'ble High Court, Chennai forimplementation. This Office is awaiting for ordersfrom the competent authority, Kochi. Soon after thereceipt of the instructions/orders from thecompetent authority, Headquarters Office, Kochi,the withheld amounts from the above-retiredemployees will be released based on thepronouncement of the final judgment of Hon'ble HighCourt, Chennai." 4. Despite the same, the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioners very strenuously contended that contemptnotice has to be issued to the respondents and they shouldbe punished for contempt. We are afraid, we cannot accept https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4the same. It is trite law that the contempt jurisdictioncannot be used for execution of an order, but has to beused only in a proper case, where the respondentsdeliberately, wilfully and wantonly flouted the order. Thejurisdiction of the contempt has to be invoked sparinglyand with caution.5. Here in this case, a perusal of the letter dated15.7.2009, it is evident that the respondent has takensteps for complying with the direction given by this Court.We do not find that the action of the respondents in notcomplying even within a shorter period can be regarded as acontumacious act, or deliberate disobedience of the orderof this Court. When this legal position is put to thelearned counsel for the petitioner, he replied that it isunfortunate that the Court is not granting the prayer whenthe petitioner is having a positive order. Here again, wewill have to say that is very unfortunate that counsel hasrefused to accept the legal position for desperate reasonsthat the order shall got to be executed at the threat ofcontempt proceedings and keeping the contempt petitionhanging over the head of the respondents.6. While dealing with the application for contempt,the court is really concerned with the question whether theearlier decision which has received its finality had beencomplied with or not. The Court cannot expand or go beyondthe order of the Court. The Court exercising contempt https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question ofcontumacious conduct of the party, who is alleged to havecommitted default in complying with the directions in thejudgment or order. (vide Union of India v. Subedar DevassyPV, 2006 AIR SCW 342 and K.G. Derasari v. Union of India,2001 (10) SCC 496.) 7. In the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak NathGanguly,(2002) 5 SCC 352, the Court further explained thecontempt jurisdiction as follows : "The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to upholdthe majesty and dignity of the courts of law, sincethe respect and authority commanded by the courts oflaw are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizenand the democratic fabric of society will suffer ifrespect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contemptof Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under thestatute for the purpose of securing the feeling ofconfidence of the people in general for true andproper administration of justice in the country. Thepower to punish for contempt of court is a specialpower vested under the Constitution in the courts ofrecord and also under the statute. The power isspecial and needs to be exercised with care andcaution. It should be used sparingly by the courts onbeing satisfied regarding the true effect ofcontemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind thatthe court exercising the jurisdiction to punish forcontempt does not function as an original orappellate court for determination of the disputesbetween the parties. The contempt jurisdiction shouldbe confined to the question whether there has beenany deliberate disobedience of the order of the court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6and if the conduct of the party who is alleged tohave committed such disobedience is contumacious. Thecourt exercising contempt jurisdiction is notentitled to enter into questions which have not beendealt with and decided in the judgment or order,violation of which is alleged by the applicant. Thecourt has to consider the direction issued in thejudgment or order and not to consider the question asto what the judgment or order should have contained."8. In yet another case, the Supreme Court, whiledealing with an appeal filed by the Government against therefusal of condonation of delay, the Supreme Court in thecase of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v.Mst.Katiji, 1987 (28) ELT 185, observed thus :"....experience shows that on account of animpersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucraticmethodology imbued with the note making, file pushingand passing of the buck ethos, delay on its part isless difficult to understand though more difficult toapprove. In any event, the State which representsthe collective cause of the community does notdeserve a litigant non-grata status." By stating so, the Apex Court observed that in the case ofGovernmental action some play in joint should be shown, asthere are so many procedure to be followed while takingaction which is collective in nature. In Governmentalaction one cannot expect the very same speed with whichprivate person takes decision. 9. In yet another matter in respect of condonation of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7delay, the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. TataYodogawa Ltd., 1988 (38) ELT 739, accepting the explanationgiven for delay by the Government to the effect that 'suchdelay is always beyond the control especially in Governmentmatters as the file has to be routed through severalsections of the department', observes that the Governmentbeing impersonal takes longer time than the private bodiesor the individuals. 10. The observations of the Supreme Court equallyapplies to the facts of the present case.11. In the light of the above rulings, and on thefacts of the case, we are of the view that the act of therespondents does not in any way amount contumacious act.The contempt petition is closed. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru HEMANT LAXMAN GOKHALE, theChief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, thisthe 22nd day of October, 2009. Sd/-DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS)//Certified to be true copy//Dated at Madras this the day of 2009.COURT OFFICER(O.S.)From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuingcertified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in thisformat. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 SMVCONTEMPT PETITION No.581/2009THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN ANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH ORDER DATED : 22/10/2009FOR APPROVAL :11/12/2009APPROVED ON :14/12/2009