Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(All) 840

2004 (3) AWC 2444
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
Rajes Kumar, J.
C.M. Contempt P. No. 3480 of 2003
Decided on April 28, 2004
Shail Kumari and others
Versus
Hari Raj Kishore, Secretary, Education Basic, U. P., Lucknow and others

Advocates:
Counsel for the Applicants : Yogesh Agrawal.
Counsel for the Respondents: K. R. Singh, S.C. and R. B. Pradhan, S.C.

The court can only consider whether the direction given in the order was complied with or not, and cannot go into the merit of the order. Delay in compliance can have serious consequences and may lead to costs being awarded against the non-compliant party.

Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Violation of Court Order - Companies Act, 1956 - U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 - [VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER] - [Contempt of Court] - [Companies Act, 1956, U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972] - The court found that the opposite party had violated the court order by not complying with the direction to take over primary schools and provide financial aid, as mandated by the Companies Act, 1956 and U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The court also highlighted the consequences of delay in compliance and awarded a cost of Rs. 20,000 against the opposite party No. 1.
Fact of the Case:

The petition alleged that the opposite parties violated a court order directing the takeover of primary schools and provision of financial aid, as mandated by the Companies Act, 1956 and U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The opposite party filed an affidavit of compliance, but the petitioner claimed that the compliance was a farce and the opposite party had no concern for the welfare of the children and staff. The legality of the compliance order was contested, and the court was urged to examine the merit of the order.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that it could only consider whether the direction given in the order was complied with or not, and that it could not go into the merit of the order. It noted that if the compliance order was not in accordance with the intent of the court or was illegal and arbitrary, it could only be challenged before the appropriate forum. The court also highlighted the consequences of delay in compliance and awarded a cost of Rs. 20,000 against the opposite party No. 1.
Issues: Violation of court order, compliance with court direction, legality of compliance order, consequences of delay in compliance
Ratio Decidendi: The court can only consider whether the direction given in the order was complied with or not, and cannot go into the merit of the order. If the compliance order was not in accordance with the intent of the court or was illegal and arbitrary, it could only be challenged before the appropriate forum. Delay in compliance can have serious consequences and may lead to costs being awarded against the non-compliant party.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the observation that the opposite party No. 1 would be subject to a cost of Rs. 20,000 payable to the official liquidator within two months, to be used for the purpose of the schools. If the amount was not paid, it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

JUDGMENT

Rajes Kumar, J.—Present petition has been filed with allegation that the opposite parties have violated the following direction given by this Court vide order dated 6.2.2002 in Company Misc. Application No. 4 of 1997 :

“(3) In the matter of payment of salaries to the teaching and non-teaching staff of primary schools :

It is reported that there are seven primary schools which were run by the company (in liquidation) out of these, three primary schools are at Churk Cement Factory, one at Gurma and three at Dela Cement Factory and that there are in all about 62 teaching and non-teaching staff in these schools. These teachers, employees have not been paid their salary from 13.7.1998.

U. P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. (In liq.) was wholly owned and controlled by the State Government and that the company was a Government Company under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, which was wholly owned and controlled by the State Government, and was thus a instrumentality of the State. The U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 provided for taking over the Primary Schools run by Local Bodies, to be managed by the Basic Education Board, for which grant comes under planned expenditure of the State of U. P. Even after company has been wound up, and is under liquidation, the State Government which was running and managing the institutions avoid its obligation to take over the responsibility and to provide primary educational facilities as a mandate by Constitution of India. In facts and circumstances of the case and looking into the interest of the school going children of the area, which include the children of company workers, employees and other children of the area as well,

Secretary of Education Basic, U.P., is directed to consider the matter to take over these primary schools, under U. P. Basic Education Board, and to provide financial aid to these schools. He shall consider the matter and issue necessary orders with intimation to the official liquidator without four weeks.”

2. On behalf of opposite party No. 1 an affidavit of compliance has been filed. In paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit, it has been stated that in compliance to the order dated 6.2.2002, an order dated 12.2.2004 has been passed and the copy of the same was sent to official liquidator. The copy of the order dated 12.2.2004 has been annexed as Annexure-1. Order dated 12.2.2004 reads as follows :

““?§ê¬ŸË (Á?‚) 8å‹Ë??§‡ÊŸ ‚¢ÅÿÊ-yv~| ??¥ ‡ÊÊ‚?§Ëÿ ‚?Ê¬?§ ?§Ë Á/U¬Ù˜¸U ‚¢ÅÿÊ-yw/Æw ??§ ¬Á/U¬???ÿ ??¥ ÿÍ0 ¬Ë0 ‚Ë??¥˜U ?§Ê/U¬Ù/?U‡ÊŸ ?§Ë ‚?Ê¬Ÿ ?§Ë ÁSÕÁÃ ??¥ ?Ê0 ãÿÊÿÊ‹ÿ mÊ/Ê •¬Ÿ? ÁŸáÊ¸ÿ ÁŒŸÊ¢?§ {.w.wÆÆw mÊ/UÊ ‚Áø?, ’?Á‚?§ 8¡È??§‡ÊŸ ’Ù«¸U ??§ •œËŸ ‹??§/U, Á?ûÊ ¬ÙÁ•Ã ?§/UŸ? ??§ Á’ãŒÈ ¬/U Á?øÊ/U ?§/U ‡ÊÊ‚?§Ëÿ ‚?Ê¬?§ ?§Ù øÊ/U ‚åÃÊ„U ??§ ÷ËÃ/U •?ªÃ ?§/Êÿ? ¡ÊŸ? ??§ •ÊŒ?‡Ê ¬?ŒÊŸ Á?§ÿ? ªÿ?–

ß‚ ‚¢Œ÷¸ ??¥ Á?øÊ/U-Á??‡Ê¸ „?ÃÈ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ SÃ/U ¬/U ÁŒŸÊ¢?§ wx.vv.wÆÆw ?§Ù ’Ò?U?§ •Ê„ÍUÃ ?§Ë ªÿË Á¡‚??¥ Á‡Ê?ÊÊ ÁŸŒ?‡ÊÊ‹ÿ (’?0 ?Ê0) ? Á¡‹Ê Á?lÊ‹ÿ ÁŸ/UË?Ê?§/Á¡‹Ê ’?Á‚?§ Á‡Ê?ÊÊ •Áœ?§Ê/UË, ‚ÙŸ÷º? mÊ/Ê ©U¬ÁSÕÃ „Ù?§/U •Á÷‹?pËÿ/÷iÁÃ?§ ÁSÕÁÃ S¬c˜U ?§Ë ªß¸–

¬?ÊÕÁ??§ Á?lÊ‹ÿÙ¥ ?§Ù Á?ûÊ ¬ÙÁ•Ã Á?§ÿ? ¡ÊŸ? ??§ ¬Á/U¬???ÿ ??¥ Á?l?ÊŸ ‚È‚¢ªÃ ÁŸÿ? ÁŸêŸ?Ã˜ „Ò¥U–

v. •‡ÊÊ‚?§Ëÿ Á?lÊ‹ÿÙ¥ ?§Ù Á?ûÊ ¬ÙÁ•Ã ?§/UŸ? ?§Ë ?§Ùß¸ ‡ÊÊ‚?§Ëÿ ŸËÁÃ Ÿ„UË¥ „ÒU–

w. Á?§‚Ë ÷Ë ?§Ê/U¬Ù/?U‡ÊŸ mÊ/Ê ‚¢øÊÁ‹Ã ¬?ÊÕÁ??§/Á?lÊ‹ÿÙ¥ ?§Ù ˜?U?§-•Ù?/U ?§/U??§ ©U‚? Á?ûÊ ¬ÙÁ•Ã ?§/UŸ? ?§Ë ?§Ùß¸ ‡ÊÊ‚?§Ëÿ ŸËÁÃ Ÿ„UË¥ „ÒU–

x. •‡ÊÊ‚?§Ëÿ ?ÊäÿÁ??§ Á?lÊ‹ÿÙ¥ ‚? ‚ê’h ¬?Êß?/UË ¬?÷Êª ?§Ù •ŸÈŒÊÁŸÃ Á?§ÿ? ¡ÊŸ? „?UÃÈ ?Í‹÷ÍÃ ‡ÊÃ?Z ÁŸêŸ?Ã˜ „Ò¥U ÿÕÊ-¬?Êß?/UË Á?lÊ‹ÿÙ¥ ?§Ù ‚ê’h ?ÊŸ?§/U ?ÊÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ •ŸÈŒÊŸ ÁŒÿÊ ªÿÊ „Ù, ¬?ÊÕÁ??§ Á?lÊ‹ÿ ?§Ê ŸÊ? ¬Á/‚Ë?Ÿ ‚ÍøË ??¥ „UÙ– ¬?ÊÕÁ??§ Á?lÊ‹ÿÙ¥ ?§Ù ?ÊäÿÁ??§ Á?lÊ‹ÿ ??§ ‚ÊÕ ‚ê’hÃÊ ??§ •ÊŒ?‡Ê ÁŒŸÊ¢?§ wv ¡ÍŸ, v~|x ??§ ¬Í?¸ ‚?Ê? •Áœ?§Ê/UË mÊ/Ê ¬?ŒÊŸ Á?§8 ªÿ? „Ê?¥–

v. ÿÍ0 ¬Ë0 ‚Ë??¥˜U ?§Ê¬Ù¸/‘U‡ÊŸ mÊ/Ê ?È§‹ | ¬?ÊÕÁ??§ Á?lÊ‹ÿ ‚¢øÊÁ‹Ã „Ò¥U– ßŸ ¬?ÊÕÁ??§ Á?lÊ‹ÿÙ¥ ?§Ë Ÿ ÃÙ ’?Á‚?§ Á‡Ê?ÊÊ ¬Á/U•Œ mÊ/Ê ?§÷Ë ?ÊãÿÃÊ ¬?ŒÊŸ ?§Ë ªÿË „ÒU, Ÿ ÿ? ‚ê’h ¬?Êß?/UË Á?lÊ‹ÿ ?§Ë ‡ÊÃ?Z ¬Í/UË ?§/Ã? „Ò¥U

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(All) 840

2004 (3) AWC 2444(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)Rajes Kumar, J.C.M. Contempt P. No. 3480 of 2003Decided on April 28, 2004Shail Kumari and othersVersusHari Raj Kishore, Secretary, Education Basic, U. P., Lucknow and others

The court can only consider whether the direction given in the order was complied with or not, and cannot go into the merit of the order. Delay in compliance can have serious consequences and may lead to costs being awarded against the non-compliant party.

Cases Referred (7)

2004 (3) AWC 2444
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
Rajes Kumar, J.
C.M. Contempt P. No. 3480 of 2003
Decided on April 28, 2004
Shail Kumari and others
Versus
Hari Raj Kishore, Secretary, Education Basic, U. P., Lucknow and others