IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Doctrine of Merger – When Special Leave Petition is dismissed or disposed of without granting leave there would be no application of Doctrine of Merger, even if order is passed with reasons.
(2) Contempt of Court – Legal provisions cannot be used to coerce a litigant to approach Supreme Court without resorting to filing Contempt Petition in High Court.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Assail in this appeal is to the order passed by the High Court on 28.09.2022, in Contempt Petition No. 1814 of 2022, by which the Contempt Petition preferred by the appellant has been held not maintainable in the High Court, on the ground that the order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2234 of 2000, having merged in the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 19497 of 2017 and in Civil Appeal No. 19498 of 2017, the High Court cannot adjudicate the Contempt Petition.

3. Without entering into unnecessary details, suffice it would be to indicate that appellant had preferred a Writ Petition No. 12544 of 1999, which was taken up for hearing along with some other Writ Appeals and by common order dated 23.04.2007, the matters were disposed of by issuing certain directions. For the purpose of the present Contempt proceedings, we are concerned with direction No. 10 which is reproduced below:

“Since the Corporation of Chennai has expressed its inability to absorb any of the employees into its services as of now, we hereby direct that in case of any vacancies lying vacant as on date with the Corporation of Chennai or which would arise hereafter, it shall strive to absorb the above said identified persons (as mentioned in clause (vi) above) into its services. In their order of seniority, before going to appoint any fresh hands.”

4. Alleging non-compliance of the directions reproduced above, the appellant preferred Contempt Petition before the Madras High Court which has been closed without adjudicating the Contempt Petition on merits.

5. According to the High Court, once the order passed by the High Court was taken up in appeal before this Court and the Special Leave Petition was entertained and leave was granted by this Court, the Doctrine of Merger would apply. Therefore, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Contempt Petition.

6. Assailing the order passed by the High Court learned counsel for the appellant argues that the High Court has wrongly concluded that in the present case Doctrine of Merger would apply. Referring to V. Senthur & Anr. vs. M. Vijaykumar, IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission & Anr., (2022) 17 SCC 568, it is further argued that while dismissing the Civil Appeal in the present case this Court did not assign any reason over and above the reasons by the High Court, therefore the judgment of the High Court exists independent of the order passed in Civil Appeal.

7. According to learned counsel, in the absence of fresh reasons assigned by this Court there would be no merger. Thus, according to him the High Court should have entertained the Contempt Petition on merits.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent would submit that once this Court granted leave and thereafter dismissed the Civil Appeal, there will be no independent existence of the order passed by the High Court and the Doctrine of Merger would be squarely applicable. Learned Counsel would refer to the law laid down by this Court in Kunhayammed & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359, and Khoday Distilleries Limited & Ors. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal, (2019) 4 SCC 376.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the material on record together with the law laid down in V. Senthur & Anr., Kunhayammed & Ors. and Khoday Distilleries Limited & Ors. (Supra), we are of the considered view that the High Court ought to have entertained the Contempt Petition on merits.

10. We are not impressed with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the present petition, the Doctrine of Merger would not apply. In V. Senthur & Anr.(Supra) case relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of without granting leave as would be clear on a reading of para Nos. 23 and 24 of the order. Thus, when the Special Leave Petition is di