High Court Of Calcutta
M. G. MUKHERJI, GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE
ASHIS CHAKRABORTY - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN LEVER SRAMIK KARMACHARI Congress - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 1976 Of 1991
Decided On : 12/19/1991
CONTEMPT OF COURT - JURISDICTION - ALTERATION OF PREVIOUS ORDER - ELECTION SCHEDULE - JUDICIAL OFFICERS' INVOLVEMENT - CONTEMPT JURISDICTION - EXERCISE - CONDITIONS - APPEALABILITY OF ORDERS - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - SECTION 19(1).
Fact of the Case:
An appeal was filed against an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a contempt application. The Single Judge had altered his previous order regarding the holding of an election for the Executive Committee of a Trade Union and had given further directions in the matter. The appellants contended that the Single Judge did not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order and that the order was in violation of the principles of contempt of court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Single Judge did not have the jurisdiction to alter his previous order and give further directions in the matter. The Court held that the Single Judge was not justified in exercising his contempt jurisdiction in a case where no contempt had been committed. The Court also held that the order was not appealable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it was not an order imposing punishment for contempt.
Issues: 1. Whether the Single Judge had the jurisdiction to alter his previous order and give further directions in the matter. 2. Whether the Single Judge was justified in exercising his contempt jurisdiction in a case where no contempt had been committed. 3. Whether the order was appealable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Single Judge did not have the jurisdiction to alter his previous order and give further directions in the matter, as he had already disposed of the application for contempt. 2. The Single Judge was not justified in exercising his contempt jurisdiction in a case where no contempt had been committed, as the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to protect the dignity and authority of the court, and not to enforce the rights of a party. 3. The order was not appealable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it was not an order imposing punishment for contempt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the order of the Single Judge was set aside.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment dated June 3, 1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of an application for contempt for a purported disobedience and violation of an earlier order passed by the self-same Court on 21. 7. 89 in C. O. No. 1939 of 1989. It was alleged that by not allowing the Special Officers to hold and conduct the election of the Executive Committee of the Hindustan Lever Sramik Karmachari Congress as per the programme drawn by the two Special Grocers in accordance with the direction given by the said Court i. e. , the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Alipur there was contempt of Court. There is a further allegation in the said application that there had been an interference with the course of justice by intimidiating the two Special Grocers and causing even assaults on them, which really amounted to criminal contempt.
( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge curiously enough does not come to any specific finding as to whether or not a case for contempt has really been made out by the petitioner and against the contemners. Ignoring the contention of the contemnor respondents before him that any further direction was unnecessary towards the implementation of the Court's initial judgment dated 21. 7. 89 and overruling the contention that it was inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a model of executing the previous order, the learned Single Judge was of the view that he could justifiably give appropriate further directions in the matter of holding the election since his earlier judgment dated 21. 7. 89 got the seal of approval of the apex Court of the country and the said learned Single Judge had jurisdiction to reverse or alter or even modify the earlier judgment in any manner whatsoever. He was therefore competent to pass orders since the further contempt application could not be said to be infructuous because he had ample jurisdiction to close the breach in addition to punishing the contemnor. But then the learned Single Judge in his wisdom thought that justice will not only be done properly by merely going into the violation of the order and finding out who is guilty or not but by passing effective direction to hold the election of the Executive Committee of the Union and for the sake of securing the ends of justice and for upholding the preservation of rule of law, he, was competent to pass apposite orders and/or directions. The learned Single Judge accordingly directed the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipur to make all arrangements for holding the election of the Executive Committee of Hindustan Lever Sramik Karmachari Congress in the compound on the vacant space of the District Judge's Court, Alipur on any Sunday or according to convenience under the direct supervision of a senior Assistant l3istrict Judge to be selected by the learned District Judge. He earlier directed the 5th Additional District Judge to give necessary orders so as to appoint two Special Officers for holding the election and gave to the special Officers the choice of a date in consultation with the Assistant District Judge. He went also to direct the District Judge to implement this order so as to render all possible assistance to the 5th Additional District Judge including the availability of the District Judge's compound for holding the election. The learned Single Judge further went on to observe that the election was to take place on the basis of the voters' list prepared by the Special Officers. There was a further direction on the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to render all possible assistance in the matter. The learned Assistant District Judge was directed-further to function as the Returning Officer and for rendering assistance the Special Officers were given liberty to take other hands to help them in counting the votes. The counting was to tak
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.