Anirudha Rout v. Alka Sirohi and ors.). Relied upon paragraph
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.6372 of 2022 (Through Hybrid mode) Sankarsana Nayak …. Applicant -versus- Kalyana Sourav Dash, B.D.O., Bhuban …. Alleged Contemner Advocates appeared in this case: For applicant : Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate Mr. K. Patra, Advocate Mr. R. K. Sahoo, Advocate For Alleged Contemner : Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUDGMENT 03.01.2023 1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant. He submits, there has been wilful and deliberate violation of order dated 5th October, 2021, made by co-ordinate Bench, in disposing of his client’s writ petition. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of alleged contemner and submits, instructions have been received that applicant is eligible to be CONTC no.6372 of 2022 Page 1 of 9 // 2 // beneficiary under the housing scheme. Unfortunately, the scheme is not in operation at present time. His further instruction is that upon revival of the scheme, applicant will be given first opportunity. 3. A paragraph from the written instructions handed up is extracted and reproduced below and the instructions handed back. “7. The enquiry Committee headed by Sri Girish Kumar Parida, JE along with the other team member submitted the detail report on 08.12.2022 (Annexure-2) & the beneficiary Sri Sankarshan Nayak, S/o- Kalandi Nayak, At/Po- Anal, Dhalapada is eligible to avail a pucca house under Rural Housing Scheme as per the report. Now new addition of eligible Beneficiary in Rural Housing Portal has been disabled. The Beneficiary will avail the first opportunity to avail Rural Housing Scheme when Govt. allows addition new eligible Beneficiary. This has been intimated to the petitioner Sri Sankarshan Nayak in a personal hearing on dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure-3) and as a written communication Vide Letter No.6390/Dt. 15.12.2022 (Annexure-4).” 4. Mr. Mohanty in reply relies on view taken by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 11th August, 2011 in CONTC no.481 of 2011 (Anirudha Rout Vs. Alka Sirohi and ors.). Relied upon paragraph 7 (Manupatra print) is reproduced below. CONTC no.6372 of 2022 Page 2 of 9 // 3 // “The aforesaid two decisions clearly lay down the powers of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as under Article 215 of the constitution of India. Since we have already held that grave injustice has been done to the petitioner because of the circumstances stated earlier, we dispose of this contempt petition directing the contemnors to take steps immediately to promote the petitioner to IAS against the vacancy which remained unfilled in the year, 2005. ” 5. Applicant has alleged wilful and deliberate violation of directions made in said order dated 5th October, 2021. The order was made considering submission on behalf of applicant, made during course of hearing that liberty be granted to him to file representation before the Block Development Officer (BDO), for redressal of his grievances and for direction upon the office of alleged contemner to take a decision on such representation within a specific period. Operative part of said order is reproduced below. “Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the Block Development Officer, Bhuban (opposite party no.3) highlighting all his grievances by filing representation along with a copy of this order through Registered Post within a period of two weeks. In the event, such representation is received by the Block Development CONTC no.6372 of 2022 Page 3 of 9 // 4 // Officer, Bhuban (opposite party no.3), he/she is directed to take a decision on the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation and communicate the result of such exercise to the petitioner.” 6. Anirudha Rout (supra) has been relied upon by applicant to contend that grave injustice can be remedied in contempt jurisdiction. By the judgment, there was direction upon alleged contemner to take steps to immediately promote applicant therein to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) against the vacancy, which remained unfilled in year, 2005. Applicant, in that case, had claimed promotion to the IAS, effective year, 2005. The Tribunal directed accordingly. Challenging judgment of the Tribunal, State had moved the writ Court by WP(C) no.581 of 2008. The writ petition was heard and judgment reserved but, before the judgment was delivered, the case was listed on basis of withdrawal memo dated 22nd July, 2009, filed on behalf of State. The then Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), opposed withdrawal of the writ petition on submission that the list sent for filling up the vacancies in the IAS, up to year, 2006, had been exhausted and names were only being sent for year, 2007 onwards. On basis of such submission the Court directed that vacancy in the IAS from year, CONTC no.6372 of 2022 Page 4 of 9 // 5 // 2007 onwards be filled up considering names of all eligible persons, including petitioner. Anirudha Rout (supra) goes on to say that the submission made by then Assistant Solicitor General regarding the vacancies was found to be incorrect. As such, grave injustice was done to applicant and the direction made by the judgment. 7. The Division Bench in Anirudha Rout (supra) relied on two judgments of the Supreme Court. Firstly, M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerla, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 666, wherein it was said that the High Court, as a Court of record envisaged in article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent power to correct the records, such power being plenary. Secondly, U.P. Residents Employees Coop. House Building Society v. Noida, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 670, wherein on finding that a false affidavit had been filed before the Supreme Court with a view to mislead, there was direction to issue show-cause notice as to why action in contempt should not be taken against the deponent. 8. Articles 129 and 215 in the Constitution respectively make the Supreme Court and all High Courts to be Courts of record and to have all the powers of such a Court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The Supreme Court in D.D.A. v. Skipper CONTC no.6372 of 2022 Page 5 of 9 // 6 // Construction Co. (P) Ltd., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 622, inter alia, referred to its earlier judgment and judgments of the High Courts in exercise its contempt jurisdiction. Paragraphs 17, 19 and 20 from the judgment are extracted and reproduced below. “17. The principle that a contemner ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well-settled. In Mohd. Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji [(1984) 4 SCC 216] this Court held clearly that undergoing the punishment for contempt does not mean that the Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders. The petitioners therein had given an undertaking to the Bombay High Court. They acted in breach of it. A learned Single Judge held them guilty of contempt and imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment. In addition thereto, the learned Single Judge made appropriate directions to remedy the breach of undertaking. It was contended before this Court that the learned Judge was not justified in giving the aforesaid directions in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of court. The argument was rejected holding that "the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate directions to close the breach (of undertaking)”. xxx xxx xxx CONTC no.6372 of 2022 Page 6 of 9 // 7 // 19. To the same effect are the decisions of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in Century Flour Mills Limited v. S. Suppiah (AIR 1975 Mad 270) and Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun (AIR 1986 Cal 220). In Century Flour Mills Ltd. it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the Court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrongdoing. The inherent power of the Court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognise that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order. 20. In Sujit Pal, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view. There, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and took possession of the property. The Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid of police. The Court observed that no technicality can prevent the Court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2-A of Order 39 will be fulfilled only where such mandatory direction is given for restoration of possession to the aggrieved party. This was necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of process of law.” CONTC no.6372 of 2022 (emphasis supplied) Page 7 of 9 // 8 // 9. The law, therefore, stands well settled that superior Courts of record have the power to punish for contempt, including remedying and rectifying things done in violation of its orders. The inherent power is not only available in such cases but Courts are bound to exercise it to undo the wrong, in the interest of justice. However, in this case there was no adjudication on merits regarding challenge in the writ petition. Applicant himself had prayed for liberty to make representation and direction stipulating time for consideration thereof. The representation was considered and Court, in exercising contempt jurisdiction, has possession of instructions issued by the office of alleged contemner that applicant will have first opportunity, when the scheme is revived. In the circumstances, there has been compliance of directions made in said order dated 5th October, 2021. It goes without saying that applicant’s entitlement, as eligible to the benefit, is to be considered in respect of the scheme, if and when revived or under any new future like scheme. 10. Mr. Sharma tenders unconditional apology on behalf of alleged contemner for delayed compliance. The apology and compliance are accepted. The proceeding is dropped. CONTC no.6372 of 2022 Page 8 of 9 // 9 // 11.
Decision
The contempt application is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge P. K. Sahoo CONTC no.6372 of 2022 Page 9 of 9