Jammu v. Rashpal Singh & Ors.

Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG. v/s Rashpal Singh and ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. R K S Thakur, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 08.11.2023 (N. KOTISWAR SINGH-CJ)

#1. Heard Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. R K S Thakur, counsel representing the respondents.

#2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22nd September 2022 by which the Contempt Court had directed to submit a fresh compliance report as regards the implementation of the order/judgment dated 15th November 2014, passed in writ petition, being SWP No. 475/2005.

#3. This being an appeal preferred against an interlocutory order passed in contempt proceedings, perhaps an appeal may not lie, inasmuch as, the order under challenge in this appeal is not a final order passed by the Contempt Court for punishment in terms of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Yet Mr. Raman Sharma, counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Contempt Court appears to have come to certain conclusions which touches -2- upon the merits of the case and which would prejudice the interest of the appellants, inasmuch as, it has been observed by the Supreme Court in „Midnapore Peoples‟ Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. V. Chuni lal Nanda & Ors.‟ (2006) 5 SCC 399 held that that ‘If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra- court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases).’ Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the learned Contempt Court has made certain observations on merits, this appeal would lie.

#4. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

#5. As far as the instant appeal is concerned, it is recorded in Para 11 of the impugned judgment that the reasons which have been spelled out by the respondents while filing the compliance report, and order of consideration rejecting the case of the petitioner, have already been examined in detail by the Writ Court in SWP No. 475/2005 in which a positive finding has been recorded with regard to the delay.

#6. It appears that the order of consideration by the authorities was challenged in SWP No. 475.2005 and the grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner were examined by the Writ Court on merit in detail, which were rejected on merit. It appears that the same grounds were reiterated at the time of -3- fresh consideration by the authorities which stood discredited by the Court, and, accordingly, the Contempt Court took the view that same is not permissible.

#7. We are also of the opinion that if the grounds which are considered and rejected judicially are reiterated in a subsequent exercise, these grounds lose all efficacies and certainly cannot be pleaded again to explain as reasons for rejection by the authority.

#8. In the present case, we are of the tentative view that the Contempt Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction nor has enlarged the scope of the contempt by making any addition or alteration to the original directions passed by the writ court and, as such, the decision cited by the appellant i.e., Midnapore Peoples’ Co-op Bank Ltd (supra) may not be applicable in the present case.

#9. This Court in terms of order dated 24.08.2021 rendered in LPA No. 20/2021 titled ‘Union Territory of JK v. Shahnaza Parveen & Ors’ has held that LPA against the orders passed in a contempt petition is not maintainable as the said orders are interlocutory in nature. It would be profitable to reproduce para 14 of the said order herein below:- “14. In view of the above decision of the Coordinate Bench of thisCourt, as in the case at hand, all the orders passed in proceedings forcontempt are of interlocutory nature which does not determine anyright or issue between parties finally, we consideredopinion that the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 of the LettersPatentisnotmaintainable.”

#10. The Court in LPASW No. 2/20218 decided on 09.02.2018 titled „State V. Mohd. Sultan Mir & Saurabh Baghat and Ors. v. Abid Nazir‟ in LPA No. 71/2021 decided on 01.08.2023’, also held that the appeal is not maintainable against an interim order pending in a competent Court. -4-

#11. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the present appeal preferred against the interlocutory order dated 22nd September 2022 is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.

#12. The present appeal stands closed accordingly. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) (N. KOTISWAR SINGH) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE JAMMU 08.11.2023 SUNITA/PS