Back
2024 Supreme(JK) 326
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan, ACJ, Mr. Justice Puneet Gupta, J
M/S R.B.JODHAMAL AND CO.PVT.LTD. AND ORS. – Appellant
Versus
TEJ BAHADUR SINGH – Respondent
MCC 147 / 2019
Mr. Z.A. Shah, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. J.I. Balwan, Advocate; Mr. R.S. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vasharan Thakur, Advocate
The contempt court lacks jurisdiction to modify prior orders post-judgment, reaffirming the principle of functus officio.
Headnote:
(A) Government Order No.61-FST of 1982 - Contempt of Court - The petitioners challenged bills raised for HB dry trees, leading to a series of legal proceedings including a contempt petition for non-release of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) - The court found that the respondents' application for modification of a prior order was beyond the scope of the original judgment and dismissed it. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Jurisdiction of Contempt Court - The court reiterated that it cannot alter original directions in contempt proceedings and is functus officio post-judgment. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged bills for HB dry trees, deposited amounts in FDRs, and sought their release after a series of legal proceedings, including a contempt petition due to non-compliance by the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the application for modification, affirming that the contempt court cannot exceed its jurisdiction post-judgment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the contempt court could modify prior orders and the validity of the respondents' claims regarding outstanding amounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contempt court is functus officio and cannot entertain applications beyond the original judgment's scope.
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER
Tashi Rabstan – CJ
(A) MCC No.147/2019 [CM 263/2019]
1. The facts-in-brief are that certain bills were raised against the petitioners/non-applicants (ex-lessees) in terms of Government Order No.61-FST of 1982 dated 30.04.1982 for HB dry trees. The petitioners/non-applicants challenged the said bills before the High Court in OWP No.664/1984. The learned Single Judge vide interim order dated 15.09.1984 directed the petitioners/non-applicants herein to deposit the disputed amount in the form of FDRs. The petitioners/non-applicants, accordingly, deposited the disputed amount by way of 29 Fixed Deposit Receipts. In addition to the above, the petitioners/non-applicants also deposited an amount of Rs.50.00 lacs in the shape of three FDRs in the State Bank of India, Purani Mandi and ADB, Jammu. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 02.02.1999. The petitioners/non-applicants filed LPA No.637-A/1999 against the order of learned Single Bench. The said LPA was decided on 29.12.2015 quashing Government Order No.61-FST of 1982 dated 30.04.1982 with a direction to the writ respondents to consider all aspects with regard to grant of rebate or not to the HB dry trees which were allowed to be removed by the non-applicants by way of supplementary lease agreement without any rebate. The respondent-department, pursuant to the above judgment, considered the matter afresh with regard to the issue of rebate on HB dry trees, but rejected the claim of petitioners/non-applicants vide Order No.326 of 2017 dated 04.08.2017.
2. Thereafter, the petitioners/non-applicants filed APLPA No.39/2017 in LPAOW No.9900007/1999 seeking a direction to the Registrar Judicial to release the Fixed Deposit Receipts in favour of writ petitioners 1 to 4 which were in custody of Conservator of Forests, Chenab Circle, Jammu. The petitioners/non-applicants also made a statement that they were ready to pay a sum of Rs.50.00 lacs by way of Fixed Deposit Receipts. The Court vide order dated 08.05.2018, while accepting the statement of petitioners/non-applicants, directed that subject to petitioners’ furnishing the amount of Rs.50.00 lacs before the Registrar Judicial which had been deposited, the Fixed Deposit Receipts would be released in favour of the petitioners.
3. The writ respondents filed Special Leave Petition (Civil), Diary No.33024/2018 before the Apex Court, however, the same too came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2018.
4. Since the writ respondents failed to release the Fixed Deposit Receipts in favour of petitioners/non-applicants, the petitioners/non-applicants filed contempt petition being CPLPA 21/2018 in LPAOW No.9900007/1999.
5. In the said contempt petition, the writ respondents made a statement that the amount deposited by the petitioners would not meet their liability in case the same is credited as it far exceeds the liability of the petitioners which has been calculated upto September 2018 as Rs.2,89,19,290/-. In case all the FDRs are released, it will be difficult for the State to realize the amount subsequently and even by crediting Rs.50.00 lcas deposited by the petitioners in terms of order dated 08.05.2018 passed in APLPA No.39/2017 in LPAOW No.9900007/1999, the liability shall not be met.
6. In the said contempt petition, a statement was made by the learned senior counsel on behalf of petitioners that in order to prevent any further loss to the petitioners, they were willing to accept withholding of the amount of Rs.2.90 crores from the FDRs deposited in this Court without prejudice to the rights of the parties, pending settlement of the accounts as directed by the Court in the previous orders. Accordingly, the Court vide order dated 29.01.2019 disposed of the contempt petition in the following terms:
“ I) Respondents shall ensure that the 27 FDRs physically held by the respondents are handed over to the Registrar Judicial of this Court within a period of ten days from today.
II) The Registrar Judicial shall ensure that the Fixed Deposit
