IMPORTANT POINT
While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Appellant filed an application under Sections 11 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the Act ) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ). The foundation of such application was alleged non-compliance of the directions given by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in CWJC 1120 of 1998 by order dated 30.3.1999.

2. A learned Single Judge of the said High Court, while dealing with the application for initiation of contempt proceedings, has passed the impugned judgment holding that it would not be proper to take any action for contempt. Though learned Single Judge noticed that the scope of consideration while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings was confined to the question whether there was compliance with the order or not, yet proceeded to examine the correctness of the order and called upon the parties to satisfy him that the direction of the kind contained in the order dated 30.3.1999 could be issued. After an indepth analysis, he came to hold that the directions could not have been given and therefore there was no scope for taking any action for contempt.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has not kept the correct parameters of law in view while dealing with the application for contempt. In essence he has sat in judgment over the decision rendered by another learned Single Judge. It was not open in the contempt proceedings to examine whether the order, non-implementation of which was being urged, is valid or not. That is beyond the scope of consideration.

4. In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that there can be no straight jacket formula which can be applied in such matters. If the order was not capable of being implemented, certainly it was open to the learned Single Judge dealing with the application for initiation of contempt proceedings to consider whether the order was legal or not.

5. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari and Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (2001(10) SCC 496). The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the concerned party to approach the higher Court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher Court. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or order. Though strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the State of Bihar on a three-Judge Bench decision in Niaz Mohammad and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994(6) SCC 352), we find that the same has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the question arose about the impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand of the State, the least it could have done was to assail correctness of the judgment before the higher Court. State took diametrically opposite stands before this Court. One was that there was no specific direction to do anything in particular and, second was what was required to be done has been done. If what was to be done has been done, it cannot certainly be said that there was impossibility to carry out the orders. In any event, the High Court has not recorded a finding that the direction given earlier was imp