The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subordinate court can only make a reference to the High Court and cannot initiate contempt proceedings itself, and any directions issued must fall within the scope of the limited inquiry permitted.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 11.04.2012 & 13.04.2012; contention of the petitioner before this Court is the in pending proceedings which were proceeding for contempt, the directions as contained in the aforenoted orders could not have been passed by the trial Court as the power to initiate contempt under the provisions of Sections 10 & 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is an inherent power vested with the High Court alone and the subordinate Court could not have issued the said directions; the said directions amounting to an illegality being beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Court are accordingly liable to be set aside.

2. Arguments have been refuted.

3. Record shows that Sanjay Goel had filed suit No. 21/2012 seeking an injunction against the defendants Lions Club International District and others from conducting the election as scheduled for 25 & 26.02.2012; further to provide the list of delegates having voting rights in the said election.

4. On 07.03.2012 on the statement recorded of the respective parties, the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit. The statement of the defendant i.e. T.S. Arora, District Governor, Lions Club International was to the effect that the fresh election for the second Vice=District Governor will be held as per constitution of District and International; further prior to holding of election, list of eligible and registered delegates will be supplied to the plaintiff within ten days. In view of this aforenoted statement made by the defendant which was accepted by the plaintiff, the suit was withdrawn on 07.03.2012.

5. The matter did not rest there. The plaintiff was aggrieved; his contention was that this commitment had not been honoured; a contempt petition was filed; this was dated 28.03.2012; certain directions were given on 30.03.2012. It was finally disposed of on 03.04.2012 wherein it was noted that the parties are agreeable that the election process announced may be allowed to be conducted and through e-mail fresh list of delegates is required which may be registered and prepared up to 07.04.2012 and will be supplied to all the contesting members. This contempt petition was disposed of with the aforenoted directions on 03.04.2012.

6. The matter again did not rest. A second contempt petition was sought to be filed by the plaintiff which is dated 10.04.2012. The petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the notice which has been issued on this petition; contention being that this is a notice to show cause which could not have been issued by the subordinate Court as the power to initiate contempt proceedings vested only with the High Court; further contention being reiterated that all the directions contained and passed subsequent thereto on 11.04.2012 and 13.04.2012 were beyond the jurisdiction of the Court who could not have passed the aforenoted directions and attention has been drawn to the said directions. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon AIR 1979 SC 1528 Babu Ram Gupta Vs. Sudhir Bhasin and another; first submission being that there was no undertaking given by the Court and no contempt is made out. The second limb of the argument is that in view of the judgment of a Bench of this Court reported in 2010 (4) JCC 2574 Syed Nusrat Ali Vs. State, the power to initiate contempt proceedings vested only with the High Court and the High Court can alone take cognizance of contempt having been committed in respect of the subordinate Court; the subordinate Court can only make a reference to the High Court; it cannot itself assume jurisdiction under the said Act and issue a show cause notice as to why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated.

7. There is no doubt to this later proposition which has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The subordinate Court can only make a reference to the High Court and cannot initiate contempt proceedings itself.

8. Lea