Hon ble MATHUR, J.—While accepting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3612/2003Mahi Ram Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan & others on 01st August, 2006, this Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner Mahi Ram as Para Teacher from the date of his selection with the Gram Panchayat, Meethariya. Alleging noncompliance of the order aforesaid, this application to initiate contempt proceedings as per provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was filed on 31st January, 2007 and a rule was issued by this Court on 16th March, 2007 to Shri Hira Lal Meena, District Education Officer (Elementary), Bikaner and Shri Surendra Singh Bhati, Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kolayat, Bikaner; to show cause as to why proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against them.

2. An application is now preferred by the petitioner seeking execution of the writ issued under judgment dated 01st August, 2006. It is stated that despite service of notices issued by this Court, Shri Hira Lal Meena has not filed any reply to the application for initiating proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act. It is further stated that Shri Hira Lal, as a matter of fact, is not at all in a position to make compliance of the directions given by this Court as a consequence of his transfer to some other place. It is also stated that Shri Teja Singh Dhaliwal, who was posted vice aforesaid Hira Lal Meena is also no more holding the post concerned because of his transfer and now one Shri Devendra Kumar Vyas is working as District Education Officer (Elementary), Bikaner.

3. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is much concerned with the execution of the directions given by this Court being a beneficiary of that, therefore, this Court being a court of record must take appropriate steps to ensure execution of its command.

4. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan was established by the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 and is now a High Court as a mandate of Article 214 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, while exercising powers conferred by section 46 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India, framed Rules of the High Court of Rajasthan, 1952, to regulate proceedings and matters in the High Court but those Rules are absolutely silent with regard to execution of writs, orders or directions given under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India; though Chapter-XXII of the Rules prescribes complete procedure relating to application preferred seeking a direction, order or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, other than a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. No Rules independent to Rules of 1952 are also enacted by the High Court making provisions for execution of writs, orders or directions issued u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. What appears is that non-inclusion of such provision is looking to wide plenary powers available to High Courts as per provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. For this reason only, Chapter-XXII of the Rules of 1952 is confined to office process while dealing with a writ application and not to procedure to exercise powers by a writ court. As per Article 215 of the Constitution of India, High Courts in India are superior courts of record, with inherent and plenary powers.

6. As held by Supreme Court in M.V. Elisabeth vs. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., Goa, AIR 1993 SC 1014, High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction including jurisdiction to determine their own powers. As a court of plenary jurisdiction, this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is free to adopt its own procedure and follow that. The powers of a writ court are not encircled or restricted unless it is expressly shown.

7. True it is, that powers of a writ court and the procedure of exercising such powers must be reasonable and fair and with such reasonability and fai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document