Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J.C. DOSHI, JJ.
VAGHELA JENUBHAI JASMATSANG – Appellant
Versus
K.A. PATEL – Respondent
Misc. Civil Application No. 261 of 2023
Decided On : 19-04-2023
Contempt of Courts - Jurisdiction - Contempt of Order of Superior Court - Section 2(b), 10 and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Article 215 of the Constitution of India - [Section 2(b), 10, 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Article 215 of the Constitution of India] - The court discussed the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court to punish the contempt of the order passed by the superior Court i.e. the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The court referred to Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vitusah Oberoi vs. Court and its Own Motion, 2017 SCC Online SC 1 to establish that the power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of Record under Article 215 does not extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior court. The court held that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to punish the contempt of order passed by the superior Court i.e. the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief for non-compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a land acquisition case. The respondents failed to comply with the order to pay interest on the amount of compensation as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The respondents argued that the High Court did not have the power to initiate and try the contempt of order passed by the Higher Court i.e. Hon’ble Apex Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that it did not hold jurisdiction to punish the contempt of order passed by the superior Court i.e. the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was alleged in the present case. The contempt petition was dismissed, and the notice was discharged.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to punish the contempt of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of Record under Article 215 does not extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior court. The court referred to Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vitusah Oberoi vs. Court and its Own Motion, 2017 SCC Online SC 1 to support its decision.
Final Decision: The contempt petition failed, and the notice was discharged.
ORDER :
1. By way of this contempt petition filed under the provisions of Section 2(b), 10 and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the present petitioners seek following relief:
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to punish the opponents herein-original respondents for non-compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 26528 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022 in accordance with law.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the opponents herein to comply with the order passed by the Ho’ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 26528 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the interest on the amount of compensation as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court forthwith.
(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this application YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the opponents herein to comply with the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 26528 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the interest on the amount of compensation as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court forthwith.
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey Nos. 815, 822, 823, 825, 833, 834, 841, 842 and 843 situated in Sim of village Chekhla, Sanand, Ahmedabad. Since, they were desirous to construct Narmada Canal, the possession of lands were acquired by land acquisition officer, issuing Notification, under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act on 30.03.2011. Subsequently another Notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 29.06.2011 and same was published in official Gazette on 21.07.2011. Though the notification dated 21.07.2011 was published, no award was declared by respondents, and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 18072 of 2015 seeking direction for the declaration of the award. The Division Bench of this Court by way of an order dated 10.12.2015 has been pleased to pass to direct the respondents to comply with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and passed awards in respect of the lands of the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order but the said directions were not complied with and hence, the petitioners have filed contempt petition being Misc. Civil Application No. 2687 of 2016. After passing various orders by the Division Bench of this Court, ultimately the respondents authority have passed an award on 31.01.2018, but interest was not paid on amount of compensation.
2.1 The order dated 31.01.2018 was challenged by the petitioners by filing Special Civil Application No. 3549 of 2018 and dismissed the same vide order dated 23.12.2021. Thereafter, the same was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filling SLP, whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to pay the interest @ within 12 weeks to the applicants vide order dated 21.10.2022. The petitioners have submitted that 12 weeks’ have already been passed but till the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been complied with. The petitioners have preferred representation, thereafter, to the respondent authorities but they sat tight over the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In view of above, the present contempt petition is filed.
3. Consequent to the order dated 01.03.2023, the Notice was issued by Coordinate Bench of this Court to the other side. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by one Mahendrabhai M. Desai, Deputy Colle
The High Court does not have jurisdiction to punish the contempt of order passed by the superior Court i.e. the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The main legal point established is the interpretation of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Constitution of India in relation to the maintainability of contempt proceedings before the High Court and....
The court established that making defamatory allegations against judges constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, and reasserted the importance of upholding judicial authority.
Contempt proceedings are not maintainable to challenge the merits of an administrative order passed in compliance with a court's direction to consider a representation; the proper remedy is to challe....
Civil contempt pertains to the High Court as an institution, not individual judges, and should be assigned according to the roster to ensure timely resolution.
The Supreme Court's stay of contempt proceedings does not undermine the High Court's exclusive authority under Article 215, raising concerns about judicial accountability and constitutional conformit....
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
