JUDGMENT :

1. All the aforesaid writ-petitions are taken up together for disposal to avoid prolixity of repetition as a common order being challenged in all the writ-petitions.

2. Beleaguered with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992, the Union of India, the applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a portion of the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Branch in CP/182/2016 arising out of OA 2023 of 2015 when admittedly the Union of India is not a party in the contempt proceedings, are filed.

3. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents’ Counsel, firstly, that the impugned order challenged in the writ-petition is amenable to be challenged by way of an appeal before the Supreme Court of India under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and secondly, the said order was passed against the alleged contemnor and, therefore, the Union of India cannot be said to be an aggrieved party by any stretch of imagination.

4. When this point was taken by the respondents, the learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India wanted to work on the aforesaid point having taken as a point of demur and the matter was directed to be listed today.

5. The learned Advocate for the Union of India submits that there is no fetter in maintaining an application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India if the order passed in a contempt proceeding is not an order punishing for contempt. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad Vs. Government of A.P. & Ors. reported in (2001) 1 SCC 516. It is contended that any order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction is not amenable to be challenged by way of an appeal under Section 19 of the Act and, therefore, a person cannot be rendered remediless and in view of the Constitution Bench decision rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is untouched and cannot be abridged even through a legislative fiat. It is further submitted that though a conscious decision has already been taken for providing employment to the land-losers but such appointment cannot be made without verification of the relevant documents, physical efficiency test and medical test.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Samanta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the contempt jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal and does not include each and every person unconnected and/or unrelated with the subject dispute or not made party thereto. The stranger or alien to a contempt proceeding cannot espouse the cause of a party by taking a circuitous route on assertion that the observations made therein vitally affects their rights and undermines the authority at their command. He further submits that there is no distinction which could be found from Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 making artificial or real difference between the orders passed in the said proceeding and the final order of punishment. He further submits that the Court should be slow and circumspect in entertaining a writ-petition challenging an order issuing a notice on contempt petition as held by the Supreme Court in case of Rekhaben H. Sheth Vs. Charu K. Mehta & Ors. reported in (2010) 11 SCC 102. He further submits that the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992 provides an exhaustive procedure pertaining to the proceeding having launched on alleged violation of the order of the Tribunal and the order impugned cannot be construed to mean that the observations made therein is conclusive and/or sacrosanct.

7. On the conspectus of the aforesaid stand, before we venture to proceed further, it would be relevant to consider the provisions relating to the contempt in Administrative