Back
2012 Supreme(Gau) 255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Brojendra Prasad Katakey & Subhasis Talapatra, JJ.
Banamali Sinha & another – Appellants
Vs.
Managing Committee of New Hindi Secondary School, Agartala – Respondent
Cont. App. No. 2 of 2011
Decided On: 23.02.2012
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:S. Deb, Senior Advocate, N.C. Pal
For Respondents/Defendant:A.K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate, R. Datta. Ms. M. Choudhury
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Grants-in-Aid Rules, 2005 - Rule 10 - Commission of contempt - Guilty of contempt - Contempt jurisdiction - Appeal by contemnors is directed against order appellants referring to provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 19 of Act which provides for an appeal from any order passed by High Court in exercise of contempt jurisdiction has submitted that since because of drawal of contempt proceeding against the appellants by learned Single Judge vide order - appellants right has been affected an appeal under provision of law is maintainable - It has further been submitted that in fact learned Single Judge while drawing up contempt proceeding against appellants has held that appellants are guilty of contempt and as such same being decision in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction to punish the appellants appeal in any case lies against said order - Held, Apex Court in Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd has held that when in a contempt proceeding any direction or decision on merit of a dispute between parties is made by High Court merit on initial proceeding which gives rise to the contempt proceeding same though would not be in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt and hence not appealable under Section 19 of 1971 Act aggrieved person can challenge said direction or decision in an intra court appeal if provided for or by seeking special leave under Article 136 of Constitution of India as aggrieved person cannot be without any remedy - Division Bench judgment of this Court in holding that if not an appeal under Section 19 of 1971 Act is maintainable an intra court - Appeal dismissed.
B.P. Katakey, J.
1. This appeal, by the contemnors, is directed against the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge recording prima facie satisfaction of commission of contempt of Court in violating the order dated 26.08.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 378/2010 and drawing up the contempt proceeding against them, which was registered and numbered as Cont.Cas(C) No. 20/2010, and asking them to show-cause as to why action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (in short the 1971 Act) shall not be taken and appropriate punishment for contempt of court shall not be awarded. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal may be noticed as under:-
(i) The Govt. of Tripura, Education (School) Department, vide notification dated 16.04.2007, initially brought the New Hindi Secondary (Hindi and English Medium) School, Khejurbagan, Agartala, under the State Grant-in-Aid scheme of the Education (School) Department w.e.f. 01.04.2007, thereby bringing all the existing 23 Nos. of teaching and 7 Nos. of non-teaching staff, who were on fixed pay, under the purview of the Grant-in-Aid scheme. Since the benefit of the said notification was not disbursed, a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 360/2008, was filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to grant the said benefit, wherein an interim order dated 18.12.2008 was passed directing the State respondents to release the arrear pay of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.10.2008 within a period of 2(two) months. The said order was put to challenge in Writ Appeal No. 1/2009 by the State respondents, which was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2009 by setting aside the said order taking into consideration the notification dated 17.12.2008 withdrawing the earlier notification dated 16.04.2007 and requesting the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.
(ii) C.M. Appl. No. 25/2009 was, thereafter, filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No. 360/2008 for stay of the said notification dated 17.12.2008. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.02.2009 stayed the effect and operation of the said notification dated 17.12.2008. The State respondents then preferred Writ Appeal No. 9/2009 against the said interim order dated 24.02.2009. A review petition No. 5/2009 was also filed by the writ petitioners in the said writ petition seeking review of the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1/2009. Both the writ appeal and the review petition were disposed of by a Division Bench on 02.04.2009 requesting the learned Single Judge to expedite the hearing of the writ petition, without, however, interfering with the interim order dated 24.02.2009 passed in the writ petition.
(iii) Meanwhile, the present respondent i.e., the Managing Committee of the school filed WP(C) No. 235/2009 praying for the same reliefs as in WP(C) No. 360/2008. Both these writ petitions were taken up for hearing together by a Single Bench of this Court, which were partly allowed vide common judgment and order dated 29.01.2010 quashing the order dated 17.12.2008 and directing the State respondents to give reasonable opportunity, in compliance of Rule 10 of the Grants-in-Aid Rules, 2005, to the school by allowing them to file documents and pleadings and to pass necessary order relating to withdrawal/cancellation of the notification dated 16.04.2007. It was, however, made clear that the school during that period shall be under Grant-in-Aid scheme, leaving it open to the wisdom of the State respondents to decide the quantum of the arrear pay and allowances of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and also the date of implementation of the mid day meal scheme in the primary section of the school, within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
(iv) The Dire
