SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 1034

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ, Mr. Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, J
BANNE KHAN SON OF MOHD. ISMAIL – Appellant
Versus
SMT. APARNA ARORA – Respondent
CCP / 531 / 2024



Advocates:
Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s): Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Hardik Singh

The Court emphasized mandatory compliance with its orders and established timelines for action by authorities, reinforcing judicial authority.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Allegation of willful disobedience of an order dated 06.11.2015 - The Court directed that the case of the petitioners be examined in accordance with prior judgments and orders, including those from the Supreme Court. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Compliance with Court Orders - The Court emphasized the obligation of authorities to comply with its orders and report compliance directly to the Registry. (Paras 3-4)

(C) Directions for Compliance - The Court provided specific timelines for compliance and reporting, ensuring that grievances are addressed. (Paras 2-4)

Facts of the case:
The contempt petition arises from allegations of non-compliance with a prior order of the Court, with the petitioners seeking enforcement of their rights as per earlier judgments.

Findings of Court:
The Court disposed of the contempt petition with directions for compliance, allowing for revival if grievances remain unaddressed.

Issues: The main issues involved the willful disobedience of the Court's order and the obligation of the authorities to comply with judicial directions.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that compliance with its orders is mandatory and set specific timelines for action, reinforcing the principle of judicial authority and the need for accountability.

Result: Contempt petition disposed of with directions for compliance.

Order :

1. The contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of an order passed by this Court on 06.11.2015.

2. The order passed by this Court was a judgment in rem.

3. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners. Instead of issuing notice on contempt, we are inclined to dispose of this petition with a direction that the case of the petitioners shall also be examined in terms of an order dated 01.12.2021 passed by this Court in the case of Shri Banwari Lal Bhukar & Anr. vs. Anoop Khinchi & Ors.-D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.740/2016 and other connected matters wherein this Court had given detailed directions as below:-

“1. It shall be an obligation on the part of the Commissioner, College Education to immediately release the dues payable to the petitioners as per the directions issued by this Court from time to time and the directions which have already been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 09.09.2021 in the case of State of Rajasthan Versus Manju Saxena & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.13791/2019, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed compliance to be made within a period of eight weeks.

2. A brief, but clear order regarding compliance of the order in respect of each of the contempt petitioners will have to be passed by the concerned Directorate within a period of ten weeks from today.

3. The orders in respect of each of the contempt petitioners, which are required to be passed clearly stating compliance of the order, shall be reported directly to the Registry of this Court, which shall be placed before this Court under a separate registered case.

4. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this contempt petition, at this stage, is disposed off, however, with liberty to revive, if any grievance still remains unredressed.”

4. All the authorities including the Secretariat of the Department of College Education as also the private school education officials shall be under an obligation to provide necessary information, if any demanded by Commissionerate of College Education, towards compliance of the order which was passed earlier by this Court and in the case referred to hereinabove.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top