Back
2002 Supreme(Guj) 538
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.S.SINHA, J.M.Panchal
PATEL HARGOVINDBHAI HIRABHAI - Appellant
Versus
JASHVANTBHAI MANILAL DANI - Respondent
MISC.CIV.APPLN. 755 of 2002
Decided On : 07/24/2002
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Applicant submits that respondents are guilty of disobedience of order passed by Gujarat Secondary Education - Counsel representing applicant counsel appearing for respondent by means of instant application and urges that they be punished for contempt of Tribunal - Subsequently addressed to management another letter seeking withdrawal of his application seeking permission for voluntary retirement - By its communication management informed applicant that his request for voluntary retirement had been accepted and papers had been forwarded to concerned Department and as his request for withdrawal of application could not be acquiesced - By another communication School informed applicant that in view of his voluntary retirement pursuant to his application stood retired from service after office hours – Held, Court feels that applicant is attempting to use contempt jurisdiction of Court for executing order of Tribunal which is not permissible in law - In somewhat similar in its decision rendered in operative Credit Service Society reported Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly and unequivocally ruled that contempt proceedings are not intended to be a substitute of execution process - Again in and others and others Supreme Court Cases at Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused -Normally it cannot be used for execution of decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for - Discretion given to Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Courts dignity and majesty of law - Further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemnor and Court – Appeal dismissed (Para 15)
( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Kirit I. Patel,learned counsel representing the applicant,mr. P. K. Jani,learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. R. C. Kodekar, learned counsel of the respondent no. 3.
( 2 ) BY means of instant application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter called "the Act", the applicant submits that the respondents are guilty of disobedience of the order dated 9th October, 2001, passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad, hereinafter called "the Tribunal", in Application No. 205 of 2000, and urges that they be punished for contempt of the Tribunal.
( 3 ) THE applicant is Headmaster serving at Shri Shreyas Kelvani Mandal Sanchalit G. L. Patel High School, Unjha, District: Mehsana. He moved an application dated 1 9/01/2000, requesting the management of the School for grant of permission for voluntary retirement with effect from 3 1/05/2000.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, he addressed to the management another letter dated 14/04/2000, seeking withdrawal of his application dated 1 9/01/2000, seeking permission for voluntary retirement.
( 5 ) BY its communication dated 26/04/2000, the management informed the applicant that his request for voluntary retirement had been accepted, and papers had been forwarded to the concerned Department, and, as such, his request for withdrawal of the application could not be acquiesced. By another communication dated 30th May, 2000, the School informed the applicant that in view of his voluntary retirement, pursuant to his application dated 1 9/01/2000, he stood retired from service after office hours of 31/05/2000.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the refusal of the management of the School to permit him to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement and consequential retirement, the applicant approached the Tribunal assailing the orders dated 26/04/2000 and 30/05/2000.
( 7 ) THE Tribunal, vide its order dated 9th October, 2001, upheld the claim of the applicant, and quashed the orders dated 26/04/2000 and 30/05/2000. The Tribunal also declared that keeping of the applicant out of employment from 1/06/2000 and onward was null and void. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the management of the School to reinstate the applicant forthwith and to pay to the applicant his dues within a period of three months, from its own funds.
( 8 ) THE directions of the Tribunal, contained in its order dated 9/10/2001, were not complied with by the respondents within the stipulated time. The applicant, therefore, moved instant application under section 12 of the Act.
( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that the applicant has been reinstated with effect from 2nd July, 2002. Thus, the direction of the Tribunal, so far as it relates to reinstatement of the applicant is concerned, stands complied with.
( 10 ) PERTAINING to the direction of the Tribunal for payment of dues to the applicant, the stand of the respondents is that they have moved the Tribunal for its review, and the Review Application is pending. Thus, the direction has not attained finality. According to the respondents, the direction being sub judice, there is no willful disobedience of the order of the Tribunal amounting to contempt.
( 11 ) IN the first instance, the learned counsel of the applicant contends that the Review Application of the respondents is not maintainable. Otherwise also, according to him, there being no interim order, either by the Tribunal or any competent Court of law, staying operation of the order dated 9/10/2001, the respondents were bound to comply with the said order, and having failed to do so, they are guilty of willful disobedience and have exposed themselves to the punishment for contempt of the Tribunal.
( 12 ) COUNTERING the submissions of the learned counsel of the applicant, Mr. P. K. Jani, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 and 2, submits that the Review Application of the respondents is maintainable, in view of the provisions
