1. Application for correction of date of birth — Tribunal direction to consider representation — Rejection of representation — Contempt proceedings under Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1823
1996(8) Supreme 742
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Vijay Singh, Secretary Home & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Mittanlal Hindoliya -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14920 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14654 of 1996)
Decided on 1-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Prashant Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Dr. I.B. Gaur, Advocate.
Important Points
Compliance with a direction to consider a representation, even if based on a subordinate's report and resulting in rejection, precludes a finding of deliberate disobedience. Once the Tribunal finds no willful disobedience, it lacks the power to issue further directions in contempt proceedings.
Subject
Contempt of Court - Disobedience of Court Order
Act Referred
Headnote
Contempt of Courts Act-Section 12-Application before Administrative Tribunal for correction of date of birth of applicant, a Sub-Inspector in Police-Application was disposed of with direction to consider the representation of respondent-Representation was rejected-Contempt application-Assistant Inspector General of Police who assists Director General of Police had put up note-After consideration of it the Director General of Police made a note "inform the respondent"-It would be a case where due consideration was given to respondent s representation-Tribunal having held there was no deliberate disobedience of order, there was no power to issue further directions. (Paras 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the administrative authority wilfully disobeyed Tribunal directions by failing to apply mind to the representation for correction of date of birth. (Para 3 )
3. The administrative head's note to inform the respondent after reviewing a subordinate's report constitutes due consideration of the representation. (Para 3 )
4. Where a tribunal finds no deliberate disobedience of its orders, it lacks the power to issue further directions in contempt proceedings. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Directions issued by the Tribunal set aside. (Para 4 )
6. Does a brief note by a high-ranking official approving a subordinate's report constitute consideration of a representation?
Yes, if the official reviews the subordinate's note and directs the outcome, it indicates that the case was considered and the official accepted the findings of the subordinate. (Para 3 )
7. Can a tribunal issue further directions in a contempt proceeding if it finds no deliberate disobedience?
No, if the tribunal concludes that the party has not deliberately disobeyed the court's order, it has no power to issue further directions. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order in the contempt proceedings dated August 1, 1995 made by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Indore in Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of 1994.
3. The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the Police Department on January 1, 1960 and his date of birth in the High School Certificate was August 5, 1934. In 1992, he filed an application in the Tribunal for correction of his date of birth contending that his date of birth was July 16,1938. The Tribunal by order dated February 25, 1994 disposed of the application with a direction to consider the representation of the respondent. The representation was considered and rejected by proceedings dated May 23, 1994. Consequently, the respondent filed a contempt application contending that the appellants have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Tribunal and sought for initiation of the proceedings against the appellants under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the respondent has not deliberately disobeyed the orders of the court as direction was to consider the case afresh on the finding that the Director General of Police had not applied his mind to the issue and, therefore, the impugned order came to be issued. The question is: whether the Tribunal was right in its giving directions? It is seen that the Assistant Inspector General of Police who is the Administrative Officer assists the Administrator, namely, the Director General of Police. He had put up the note on it and after consideration of it the Director General of Police had made a note "inform the respondent". Obviously, after consideration of the case he did not agree with the claim of the respondent and accepted the report submitted by his subordinate, viz., Assistant Inspector General of Police. Thus, it would be a case where due consideration was given to the respondent s representation as per the directions given by the Tribunal. The Tribunal having held that the respondent has not deliberately disobeyed the order, there is no power to issue further directions.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The directions are set aside. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******
