Back
High Court Of Calcutta
N.C. Mukherji, N.G. Chaudhuri, JJ.
Ranjit Chatterjee – Appellant
Versus
Ram Badan Choubey – Respondent
Decided On: July 23, 1981
CONTEMPT OF COURT - COAL MINES (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1973 - SECTION 30(2) - APPEAL AGAINST ORDER DIRECTING RESTORATION OF SEIZED COAL AND OTHER ARTICLES - MAINTAINABILITY - ORDER PASSED IN EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT - APPEALABLE - ORDER AFFECTING RIGHTS OF PARTIES AND RELEVANT TO QUESTION OF VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER - STAY OF OPERATION OF ORDER GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, accused in three police cases related to the seizure of coal and other articles under Section 30(2) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, challenged an order issued by the trial judge directing them to restore the seized items within 7 days. They argued that the order was illegal and violated the provisions of the Act and Supreme Court judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal was maintainable as the impugned order was passed in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt and affected the rights and contentions of the parties. The court noted that the order was relevant to the question of whether the appellants had violated the court's order.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal against the order directing restoration of seized coal and other articles was maintainable? 2. Whether the impugned order was passed in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provides for an appeal against any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The court held that the impugned order, which affected the rights of the parties and was relevant to the question of contempt, was passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction and was therefore appealable. 2. The court distinguished the present case from previous decisions where appeals were held not to be maintainable because they related to interlocutory orders or procedural matters. The court found that the impugned order in this case was not merely an interlocutory order but had a significant impact on the rights of the parties.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and stayed the operation of the impugned order until the disposal of the contempt rule. The court declined to enter into the merits of the contempt application, leaving it to the trial judge to decide on the matter after considering all the materials and passing appropriate orders, if necessary.
1. THIS is an appeal against an order dated 13. 5. V passed by B. C. Basak, J, issuing a rule for contempt in C. R. No. 3072 (W) of 1981 and directing the appellants (alleged contemners) to restore whatever coal and whatever other articles were seized and removed on 23. 4. 81, 28. 4. 81 and 29. 4. 81 within 7 days from the date of service of the copy of the said order. The appeal has Been filed on the ground that as the coals, machineries and other implements for extraction of coals have been seized by the officers of Barbani Police Station in connection with three criminal cases, instituted on the complaint of the Chief Mining Officer, asansol under section 30 (2) of the coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, the order of the Trial Judge issuing a rule for contempt and the Order directing return of the said coal and other articles to the accused in the three police cases during investigation are wholly illegal and against the provisions of the said Act and in clear violation of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court.
2. THE next ground taken is that the action of Rambadan Choubey (the petitioner in Contempt Cases), an accused in three police cases, is wholly malafide and the said application for contempt has been moved before the trial Judge on 13. 5. 81 immediately after his application for anticipatory bail was rejected on 12. 5. 81 by the criminal Division Bench of this Court and after obtaining three Rules and three interim orders from the Criminal bench sitting singly on 12. 5. 81 and stay of all further proceedings in Barbani police Station Case No. 8 dated 23. 4. 81, case No. 10 dated 26. 4. 81 and Case No 32 dated 29. 4. 81 till the disposal of the three Rules being C. R. Case Nos. 900 916 and 917 of 1981 and also in two criminal Cases started in April 1980 by barbani P. S. till the disposal of or. Revision 901 and 902 of 1981.
On an application for stay of operation of the order of B. C. Basak, j, we issued a Rule on 2. 6. 81 and passed an ad-interim stay of operation of the order and all further proceedings. The rule was disposed of by us on 12th June, 1981. On behalf of the respondent-accused a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal was raised and it was contended that it is only against an order or decision of high Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt an appeal lies according to the provisions of section 19 of Contempt of Court's Act, 1971. The impugned order is not an order which was passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. We left open the question of maintainability and passed an order that the hearing of the appeal should be expedited. We further ordered that the interim order of stay passed by us on June 2, 1981 should continue till the disposal of the appeal.
3. MRS. Mukti Moitra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits with much emphasis that the appeal is quite maintainable. In the first instance she wanted to say that even against on order issuing a Rule for contempt an appeal lies. But in view of decision of this Court and supreme Court she does not press that point. Nevertheless, she urges that the impugned order is not simply an order for issuance of a Rule. It is something more The appellants have been directed to deliver to the respondent the coal and other materials seized by them on three different dates within a particular period. This order, according to Mrs. Moitra, certainly very much affects the rights of the parties and such an order was passed in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt and that being so, the present appeal is maintainable according to the provisions of section 19 of the Contempt of Court's act, 1971.
4. MR Chatterji learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents., contends that the impugned order is not appealable as the same was not passed in exercise of the jurisdiction to punish for contempt. That order was passed simultaneously with the issu
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
