Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
P.P. NAOLEKAR AND P.G. AGARWAL, JJ.
R.D. Srivastava – Appellant
Vs.
Suren Panging – Respondent
Contempt Appeal No. 4 of 2002
Decided On: 02.01.2003
Contempt of Court - Writ Petition - Article 226(3) of the Constitution - [Article 226(3)] - [Summary of Article 226(3) of the Constitution and its application in the case]
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the finding of contempt of court for wilful disobedience of a court order. The case involved a writ petition challenging a promotion order, and subsequent actions by the government and the appellant in response to the court's interim order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's actions were not deliberate and did not intend to lower the prestige and dignity of the court. The appellant tendered an unqualified apology, which was accepted by the court. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order of contempt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's actions constituted contempt of court and wilful violation of the court order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that not every act of not following the orders of the court can be termed as contempt of court. The distinction must be drawn between errors of judgment and deliberate actions or inactions that lower the prestige of the court.
Final Decision: The court found the appellant not guilty of contempt of court and set aside the impugned order of contempt.
P.P. Naolekar, C.J.
1. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 30.5.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No. 31(AP)/2002, where under he found the Appellant to have committed the contempt of Court having acted wilfully in disobedience of the order dated 20.12.2000 passed in W.P. (C) No. 7036/2000.
2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are-that a writ petition was filed by one Mr. S. Panging challenging the order of promotion issued in favour of Respondent No. 4 Ms. N.P. Maungh, to the post of Section Officer (Vigilance Branch) of the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat. This Court while issuing notice of motion on the aforesaid writ petition, in the interim, directed that the promotion of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Section Officer Group (B) Gazetted shall remain stayed. Opportunity was given to the Respondents to move for modification, alteration or cancellation of this order. As per the Court's order the Government by its order dated 2.1.2001 kept the order of promotion of Respondent No. 4 in abeyance.
3. The Government, thereafter, has filed an application for vacating the stay order on 30.7.01, which is numbered as Misc. Case No. 118(AP)/01. It appears that advice of the Government Advocate was sought for and by communication dated 21.3.2002 the Government Advocate informed the Secretary (General Administration), Government of Arunachal Pradesh that by virtue of operation of Article 226(3) of the Constitution, the interim order so passed stands vacated automatically as no order has been issued on the application for vacating stay within two weeks. In pursuance of the advice given by the Government Advocate the order dated 15.5.2002 was issued whereby the order of promotion of Respondent No. 4 was given effect to and she was directed to continue in the post of Section Officer (Vigilance Branch). This order gave rise to the contempt proceedings which have been taken on the application moved by the original writ Petitioner and passing of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge. Later on, the same Government Advocate sent yet Anr. communication dated 28.5.2002 to the Secretary (General Administration) informing that the letter sent by him giving advice of automatic vacation of stay order was given inadvertently, in fact, by moving the application for vacating the interim order of stay would not be treated as the stay order automatically stood vacated. On the same day, after receiving the communication from the Government Advocate the order passed on 15.5.2002 has been revoked by the Appellant by issuing a fresh order.
4. Under Article 226(3) of the Constitution any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made, without furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order and giving such party an opportunity of being heard, can move an application to the High Court for vacation of such order. When such an application is moved a copy of the same has to be served on the party who has obtained the order of stay or injunction or on the counsel of such party and that the matter has to be heard within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is earlier. When the steps are taken by moving an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacating the stay order, if the application is not disposed of within two weeks, it is the mandate of law that the interim order so passed shall stand vacated automatically. The effect of vacation would be as if there is no order of stay in existence passed by the Court, after expiry of two weeks.
5. It appears that the Government Advocate gave advice to the Secretary (General Administration) of vacating the stay as he was of the view that the application has not been considered within the period of two weeks and, ther
AI
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
