Point of Law : Contempt Judge did not have the power to revive its own order.

ORDER :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. This instant intra-court appeal has been preferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby two applications for recall bearing C.M. Application No. 80976 of 2021 for recall of order dated 26.04.2012 and C.M. Application No. 160117 of 2021 for recall of order dated 28.08.2012 passed in Contempt Case No. 716 of 2004 (Ajay Kumar Pandey and others Vs. Dr. J.S. Yadav) have been allowed and as a result the contempt proceedings have been revived against the appellant.

2. Mr. Amit Bose, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Bose has assailed the impugned order primarily on two grounds:-

(i) It is urged that the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to recall the orders, inasmuch as, once the contempt application is disposed of/dismissed, there is no provision for recall of such order. It is urged that in the instant case by means of order dated 28.8.2012 the contempt petition was dismissed as infructuous and the learned Single Judge while exercising powers of the Contempt Judge had no power to recall the said order.

(ii) It is also urged that the said application for recall was also hit by Section 20 of the Contempts of Court Act and for the said reason as well the application for recall was not maintainable as by recalling the order on application which otherwise had been rendered otiose could not be revived.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that an order was passed by the Writ Court which was affirmed in Special Appeal and almost 20 years have lapsed but the order has not been complied with and for one reason or the other, the appellant has been raising technical objections only to ensure that the order passed by the Court is not complied with.

4. It is further urged that the necessity to file the recall application arose on the ground that on mis-apprehension of facts, the contempt-petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as infructuous. Elaborating his submissions, it is urged that the contempt petition was preferred by 29 petitioners, however, only in respect of two such petitioners who were being represented by a counsel namely Shailendra Singh Chauhan made a statement that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and the learned Contempt Judge relying upon the aforesaid statement dismissed the contempt petition as a whole.

5. It is also submitted that the counsel who had made a statement before the Contempt Court was not representing the other contempt-petitioners and at best the statement could have been accepted only in respect of two such contempt-petitioners who did not wish to press the contempt petition but in the garb thereof the petition of the remaining parties could not be dismissed as their right to prosecute the contempt petition was unhampered.

6. It is further submitted that the private respondents had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and where liberty was granted to approach High Court and in furtherance thereof initially a fresh contempt was filed which was thereafter withdrawn and an application for recall was filed which after hearing the parties has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances where the order passed by the Writ Court has yet not been complied with, it is not open for the appellant to raise such technical objections and even otherwise the order of recall has not prejudiced any party and the appellant has a right of raising the objections on merits before the Contempt Court. It is urged that if an order has been passed on mis-representation or on incorrect facts, the Court is duly vested with ample powers to recall such an order as an act of Court cannot prejudice any party. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on reco