Judgment

ORDER:- This is an application made by the appellant for initiating proceedings for contempt against respondent No. 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijendra Singh. It is alleged that despite the fact that this Court had on 19th December, 1986 after hearing learned counsel for the parties granted special leave and also passed an order directing maintenance of status quo as in the High Court in the presence of learned counsel for respondent No. 4, three days after i.e. on 22nd December, 1986 respondent No. 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijendra Singh filed a criminal miscellaneous petition No. 4841/86 (R) before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court alleging inter alia that respondent No. 4 had the right to collect slurry, deliberately and wilfully suppressed from the High Court the fact that this Court had directed maintenance of status quo, and thereby obtained an order from the High Court dated 3rd January, 1987 in the said proceedings by which respondent No. 4 was allowed to transport briquettes from the area in question i.e. lands covered by the notification issued under S. 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 including the disputed plot No. 370, and had thus wilfully and flagrantly disobeyed and violated the status quo order of this Court.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at quite some length, we were satisfied that the High Court was not justified in passing the impugned order. We accordingly by order dated 23rd September, 1987 vacated the aforesaid order of the High Court dated 3rd January, 1987 and also allowed the application made by the appellant for grant of a prohibitory order and restrained respondent No. 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijendra Singh and their agents and servants from lifting sludge/slurry from the lands covered by the notification under S. 9 of the Act, in terms of the registered indenture of lease dated October 20,1984 executed by the State Government in favour of respondent No. 4 and further directed that all operations carried on by them shall stop forthwith. There was a further direction made with regard to the withdrawal of the amounts deposited by respondent No. 4 and his son towards the price of slurry collected by them in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court dated, 15th January, 1985 on furnishing bank guarantee. At the conclusion of the hearing we were inclined to the view that there was no contempt. The reasons therefore follow.

3. The question whether respondent No. 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijendra Singh are guilty of contumacious and wilful disregard of this Courts order must depend on the precise meaning of the words status quo as in the High Court. There is not much of a controversy as to the scope and effect of the status quo order passed by this Court. Shri L N. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the words ,status quo as in the High Court mean status quo as prevailing between the parties when the matter was pending in the High Court and not after the High Court had passed the impugned judgment and disposed of the writ petition. The learned counsel contends that same meaning must be given to these words as otherwise the application for grant of prohibitory order would be infructuous and the order passed by this Court meaningless. He placed emphasis on the word in. in the collocation of the words status quo as in the High Court to define the scope and effect of the status quo order. According to him, the word in must mean status quo while the matter was in the High Court; it was in seisin of the High Court till the moment before the delivery of the final judgment. Once the judgment had been delivered, the matter came to an end in the High Court. In substance, the contention is that the status quo as prevailing between the parties when the matter was pending in the High Court had to be maintained.

4. In reply Shri Kacker, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijen