The disobedience of an order passed without jurisdiction does not amount to contempt of court.

Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 51 - Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal - Jurisdiction - Interim relief - Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Section 10 - Charity Commissioner - Tribunal - Judicial subordination - Wilful disobedience - Nullity.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, members of the governing council of a public trust, filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs against the respondents, including the President, Vice-President, Secretary, and other members of the governing council. The writ petition was treated as a contempt petition under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and notices were issued to the respondents. The contempt alleged was the disobedience of an order passed by the President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in an appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner refusing to grant interim injunction during the pendency of the application filed by the petitioners under section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, while exercising power under section 71 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief. The order of which contempt is alleged to have been committed was without jurisdiction and hence the contemners and the other members of the governing council who attended and proceeded with the meeting did not commit any contempt when they ignored the order of injunction passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interim relief under section 71 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950? 2. Whether the disobedience of an order passed without jurisdiction amounts to contempt of court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, while exercising power under section 71 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief. The Charity Commissioner or Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner, while acting under section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, performs judicial functions, his decision is judicial or quasi-judicial in character and that these authorities, while exercising powers under section 51 are tribunals within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. These authorities, therefore, are Courts within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act and the contempts in respect of them can be taken cognizance of by the High Court under section 10 of the Contempt-of-Courts Act, 1971. 2. The Court held that the disobedience of an order passed without jurisdiction does not amount to contempt of court. An order without jurisdiction is a nullity which can be ignored with impunity.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT - Jamdar, J.-Writ Petition No. 3680 of 1983 filed by the petitioners for seeking various reliefs against the respondents was by an order passed on 21-143-1983 treated as a contempt petition under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. By the same order notices were issued only to Respondents Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 12 and the writ petition filed by the petitioners was rejected in limine, restricting the charge of contempt only against the said respondents.

2. Contempt complained of is of the order dated 3rd October 1983 passed by the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in an appeal pre ferred by petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalgaon, refusing to grant interim injunction during the pendency of the application filed by the petitioners under section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

3. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were the members of the governing council of Vidyawardhini Sabha, a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and the Societies Registration Act. The Governing Council consisted of 12 members, whose term, as per the constitution of the Sabha, expired in March 1983. However, as per the provisions of the said consti tution the erstwhile governing council continued to function. In August 1983, 9 members of the governing Council including the President tendered their resignations. However, on 26th August 1983 some members of the governing Council held a meeting and resolved unanimously to hold fresh elections of the governing Council. This meeting was attended by both the petitioners and Respondents Nos. 7, 10, 13 and 14. Accordingly respondent No. 2, Vice-President of the Sabha, who was acting as President after the President submitted his resignation, directed Respondent No. 14, the Secretary of the Sabha, to issue a notice for Convening a special general meeting of the general body of Vidyawardhini Sabha, for the purpose of electing the office bearers and other members of the governing Council. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 issued a notice dated 5th September 1983 convening a special general meeting of the Vidyawardhini Sabha at 9 a. m. on Sunday, 9th October 1983 for election of the President, the Vice-President, Secretary and 11 members of the governing Council. But before the date of the meeting the petitioner sent by post an application dated 14-9-83 to the.Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalgaon, praying for his consent to the suit, which they proposed to file They also admitted an application for interim injunction restraining the present respondents Nos. 2 and 4 (respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the said proceedings) from exercising any assumed power, qua the President and Secretary of Vidyawardhini Sabha. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, after hearing petitioner No. 1 rejected the application for interim injunction on the ground that there was no provision in the Bombay Public Trusts Act or rules made thereunder to grant the relief.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed an appeal to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under section 71 read with section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. To the said appeal, which was filed on 3rd October 1983, all the present respondents were joined as. parties. On the same day by a separate application, the petitioners prayed for the following interim relief:-

“Pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal ad interim relief restraining the respondents from implementing or taking further action in pursuance of the circulars dated 16-6-1983 and 5-9-1983 granted and /or interim injunction restraining the respondents 4 and 5 from exercising any assumed powers qua President and Secretary be granted.”

The learned President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal granted ex parte injunction restraining all the respondents up to 7-10-1983 from implementing or taking any action pursuant to the letter Ref. No. 3483/83-84 dated 16-5-1983 of the Vice-President, acting President, Vidy

Click Here to Read the rest of this document