Compliance with court orders is essential and must be enforced regardless of pending appeals, as established by Supreme Court directives.

ORDER :

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

1. On the question as to whether the Rule of Contempt shall be issued against the Respondents / Contemnors, an application for show-cause has been filed by the proposed Contemnors / Respondents, stating, inter alia, that the Respondent sought opinion from the Law department as to his future course of action in view of the judgement passed by this Court which has not admittedly been complied with as yet.

2. The learned Advocate for the Respondents / Contemnors refers to Annexure-B to the said show-cause petition being a submission made by the respondents that after obtaining the opinion of law department advised for filing LPA against the order dated 04.10.2024 passed in CWJC No. 10549 of 2024, letter has been written by the Under Secretary to the Additional Chief Secretary / Chief Secretary / Secretary of all the Government Departments in the State of Bihar that in respect of appeals filed against the judgement passed in the writ petition by a Single Judge, the Government should take steps on the basis of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3932 of 1992, Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. & Anr. v. Sachidanand Dass & Anr., reported in 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 465. Briefly stated, the aforesaid judgement states: -

“Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and to insist upon proceeding with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases, as here, cause serious prejudice.”

3. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that against the judgement passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10549 of 2024 on 04th of October, 2024, the Respondents have preferred an appeal. The said appeal is pending before the Division Bench and till the disposal of the application for stay connected in the appeal, this Court should lay off its hands in passing any order or direction in the nature of contempt against the Respondents.

4. In support of his contention, he also refers to a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 595 of 2024.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further states that the principle laid down in Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of this case.

6. He further refers to a subsequent judgement passed in the case of H. Phunindre Singh (Dr) & Ors. v. K.K. Sethi & Anr., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 640, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken absolutely and contrary view. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid report is quoted below for the purpose of this case.

“2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, in the facts of the case, particularly when the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not stayed by the Division Bench, the contempt petition should have been disposed of on merits instead of adjourning the same till disposal of the appeal, so that question of deliberate violation of the subsisting order of the Court is considered and enforceability of the Court's order is not permitted to be diluted. In the facts of the case, we feel that the contempt petition should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order and we order accordingly. It is further directed that before disposal of the contempt petition, the pending appeal should not be taken up for hearing. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.”

7. Thus, paragraph 2 directs the Court that before disposal of the Contempt Petition, the pending appeal should not be taken up for hearing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court went to the extent that the Contempt Application would have to be disposed of first. Thereafter, the appeal filed against the writ pe