IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, PRASENJIT BISWAS, JJ.
Sanjukta Rakshit - Appellant
Versus
Shri Subhra Chakrabarti & Ors. - Respondents
MAT No. 859 Of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 With CAN 2 of 2024
Decided on : 09-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
Prasenjit Biswas, J.
1. The appellant before this Court is aggrieved by an order dated 25th November, 2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in CPAN No. 1038 of 2022 arising out of WPA No. 5708 of 2022.
2. The appellant filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents (herein) had not honored the direction passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA No. 5708 of 2022. The said application for contempt was disposed of by the learned Single Bench by passing the impugned order.
3. The only point involved in the present appeal is whether the learned Single Bench in exercising of the contempt jurisdiction can pass an order which runs counter to the spirit of the original order for which the allegation of the violation was pleaded in the contempt application.
4. The learned Single Bench in its order dated 19.07.2022 in WPA No. 5708 of 2022 directed the respondents to process the transfer application of this appellant afresh and forward the same to the District Inspector of Schools. The direction was also given upon the respondents including the District Inspector of Schools to follow the notification dated 21st December, 2021 and the time frame as stipulated therein whereby the District Inspector of Schools have been mandated to reject or forward to the transfer application to the commission within two weeks from the date of the receiving of the same. The relevant portion of the order passed in the writ petition by learned Single Bench is quoted as under:
The petitioner’s application for transfer shall be processed afresh and forwarded by the Head of the Department to the District Inspector of Schools within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order.
The Notification dated 21st December, 2021 and the time frame stipulated therein shall be strictly followed by the respondents.
The earlier rejection of transfer shall stand set aside.
With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition shall stand disposed of.”
5. This appellant/petitioner took out an application for contempt being CPAN No. 1038 of 2022 by stating that the alleged contemnors have deliberately violated the direction as passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench and not complied with the said direction and as such action on the part of the alleged contemnors are contemptuous and apparent indication of willful violation of the direction passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA No. 5708 of 2022. The said contempt application filed by the appellant/petitioner was disposed of by the learned Single Bench by passing the impugned order on 25.11.2022 by observing interalia that-
The D.I. of Schools shall continue to make serious efforts to find a replacement for the petitioner in the school in question.
It is hoped that the disposal of the contempt application shall not, in any way, reduce the inertia of the D.I. of Schools.”
6. In the original order passed in WPA No. 5708 of 2022 dated 19.07.2022 the learned Single Bench held and observed that the ‘bar’ or ‘restriction’ of being a single teacher in a school is not applicable in the instant case of the appellant in view of amendment and clarification of the Transfer Rules of 2015 interalia dated 3rd January, 2022. A direction was given upon the respondents to process the transfer application of the appellant afresh within time frame as stipulated in the Rules. The learned Single Bench while disposing of the contempt application filed by the appellant/petitioner travelled beyond the four corners original order as passed in the writ petition and modified his earlier observation and held that the District Inspector of Schools shall continue to make serious efforts to find a rep
Union of India Vs. Subedar Devassy PV reported in (2006) SCC 613
Contempt jurisdiction cannot modify original orders; it is limited to assessing willful non-compliance.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to modify or review previous judgments; it is limited to determining willful non-compliance with original orders.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot modify or review original orders; it focuses solely on compliance with those orders.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot alter original orders; compliance with amended transfer rules is mandatory for single teachers.
The contempt jurisdiction is to ensure compliance with the order of the Writ Court and cannot be used to review or challenge the correctness of the order passed in compliance with the direction of th....
The court clarified that in contempt proceedings, the judge's role is limited to assessing compliance with prior orders, not issuing new directives, emphasizing the maintainability of appeals under S....
Wilful disobedience, as an essential element of civil contempt, requires a high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and involves a mental element of intentional, conscious, and calculated condu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Contempt Court must be conscious that it is not possessed of the powers of other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal against th....
Contempt jurisdiction must adhere to strict procedural norms and should not incorporate issues merits of the underlying dispute, as confirmed by established legal precedents.
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.