Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, VIKAS BUDHWAR, JJ.
Pankaj Dhar Dubey – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 6014 of 2022
Decided On : 25-05-2022
Whether the writ petition challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dropping the contempt proceedings and discharging the notice is amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Substitute Science Bearer, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking promotion to the post of Lab Assistant. The CAT directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion subject to the existence of a vacancy and the petitioner's suitability under the relevant rules. The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents had not complied with the CAT's order. The CAT dismissed the contempt petition, holding that there was no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the CAT's order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the order dropping the contempt proceedings was not an order punishing the respondents for contempt and therefore did not fall within the scope of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provides for appeals against orders punishing for contempt. The High Court also held that the petitioner could not rely on Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the CAT's order because the power of judicial review under Article 226 is not a substitute for the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dropping the contempt proceedings and discharging the notice is amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the petitioner could rely on Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the CAT's order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court correctly held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the order dropping the contempt proceedings was not an order punishing the respondents for contempt and therefore did not fall within the scope of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provides for appeals against orders punishing for contempt. 2. The High Court also correctly held that the petitioner could not rely on Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the CAT's order because the power of judicial review under Article 226 is not a substitute for the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Final Decision: The High Court's order dismissing the writ petition was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Bashist Tiwari, learned counsel assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1-Union of India.
2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today there is no need to issue notice to the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instituted by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
(ii) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Lab Assistant in scale of Rs. 530-610/- in pursuance of Railway Board’s Letter dated 21.01.1984 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition).
(iii) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad/respondent No. 5 to decide the case by constituting a bench of two judicial members.
(iv) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of declaration declaring Section 46 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 by which Article 323A has been inserted in the Constitution of India (Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition) and Section 5(2) and 5(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition) as unconstitutional and ultra-vires and struck down the same being violative of Articles 50 and 368 of the Constitution of India and against the basic structure of Constitution of India.”
4. On 16.05.2022 following order was passed:
Since this is a nominated matter, therefore, put up this case as fresh on 25th May, 2022, at 2:00 P.M. for which learned counsel for the parties have agreed.
It is made clear that in case learned counsel for the parties are not present, this Court shall proceed to consider and decide the matter on merits.”
5. Perusal of the reliefs as sought in the present writ petition it will reveal that the petitioner has insisted that this Court may issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.12.2021, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (5th Respondent) in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 330/00070 of 2010 in Original Application No. 330/00509 of 2004 (Pankaj Dhar Dubey vs. U.C. Dwadas Shreni and Others) whereby the contempt petition so preferred by the petitioner herein was consigned to record and the notices were discharged on the ground that there had been no willful disobedience on the part of the alleged contemnors, who were joined as opposite parties in the above noted contempt petition. Further relief is also being sought directing the respondents herein to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Lab Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 530-610/- in pursuance of the Railway Board’s Letter dated 21.01.1984 and to further declare Section 46 of
An order dropping contempt proceedings is not an order punishing the respondents for contempt and therefore does not fall within the scope of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which pro....
Contempt - Appellant can be exonerated for contempt of court giving benefit of doubt as he tendered unconditional apologies sincerely for the delay in implementation of the order of the court with al....
The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the court's order. If the disobedience is the result of some compelling c....
The Court held that mere non-compliance with interim orders does not constitute contempt unless it is demonstrated that such disobedience was wilful and deliberate.
The dismissal of the underlying writ petition with liberty reserve rendered the contempt petition infructuous.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
