Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
Dinesh Kumar – Applicant
Versus
Alok Kumar Rai And Anr. – Opposite Parties
Contempt Application (Civil) No. - 26 of 2022
Decided On : 10-03-2022
Contempt - University Executive Council - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - [12.07.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1432 (SB) of 2015] - The judgment specifically addressed the powers of the Executive Council to review its decisions, based on the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and university statutes. The court concluded that the Executive Council does not have the power to review its decisions and granted relief to the petitioners in the original case. The subsequent decision of the Executive Council was alleged to be in contempt of the earlier court order.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant alleged contempt by the respondents, the University Executive Council, for reviewing its earlier decision, which was held impermissible by the court in a previous judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent decision of the Executive Council did not amount to contempt as it did not fulfill the conditions set forth in the Contempt of Courts Act. It dismissed the contempt petition as misconceived and an abuse of the court process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the subsequent decision of the Executive Council amounted to contempt of the earlier court order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to establish contempt, there must be a binding judgment between the parties, and the disobedience must be willful and intentional. Without a binding decision, the court cannot proceed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 500/- imposed on the applicant.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Kaushlendra Tewari, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Anurag Kumar Singh and Sri Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for respondents.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that by means of judgment dated 12.07.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1432 (SB) of 2015, this Court had decided the controversy pertaining to the Lucknow University taking into consideration the various statutes and rules applicable therein and thereafter came to a conclusion that the Executive Council does not have any power of review of their earlier decisions and on the basis of the said pronouncement of law proceeded to allow the said writ petition and granted benefits to the petitioners therein directing them to be treated as being substantially appointed on the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer.
3. Learned counsel for respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present contempt petition stating that the applicant was neither a party to the writ petitions decided by this Court vide judgment dated 12.07.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1432 (SB) of 2015 nor is he aggrieved or concerned or even remotely connected with the lis decided by this Court by the said judgment. Opposing the petition, it has been submitted that there is no averment or assertions by the applicant that the judgment dated 12.07.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1432 (SB) of 2015 was ever brought to the knowledge of the Executive Council so as to allege willful disobedience of the said order.
4. It has been stated that the petitioner is a stranger to the said writ proceedings and hence he has no locus to maintain the present contempt alleging non-compliance/disobedience of the judgment dated 12.07.2021.
5. Learned counsel for applicant on the other hand has submitted that once a question of law has been settled by the writ court then the University is bound by the said pronouncements and submits that the Executive Council in their meeting dated 31.07.2021 had in fact reviewed its earlier decision dated 20.08.2007 which was impermissible as per the pronouncement of this Court in writ petition No. 1432 (SB) of 2015 and hence has committed contempt of courts. He further submits that the judgment dated 12.07.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1432 (SB) of 2015 was a judgment in rem and was applicable to all persons and even to the non-participants or petitioners in the said case and hence the respondents have committed contempt while reviewing their earlier decisions.
6. He further submits that there is no necessity of the applicant for approaching this Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order of the Executive Council dated 31.07.2021 which ex-facie amounts to contempt and hence proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be maintainable.
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the judgment dated 12.07.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1432 (SB) of 2015. A perusal of the said judgment discloses that the same was specifically with regard to the petitioners therein who had assailed the orders of Executive Council specifically on the ground that Executive council does not have any power of reviewing its order. The Court after considering the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 as well as statues of the University came to a conclusion that the Executive Council does not have any powers to review its decision and hence proceeded to quash the orders impeached therein and specific directions were issued to the petitioners therein granting benefits of the relief sought for in the petition. Before quashing the order of the executive council, the court had delved to the factual matrix of the case before the recording of finding that the executive council had in fact reviewed its earlier order.
8. The perusal of the judgment dated 12.07.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1432 (SB) of 2015 is very clear in terms and it is applicable to the persons who had
To establish contempt, there must be a binding judgment between the parties, and the disobedience must be willful and intentional.
Contempt proceedings cannot determine individual claims without prior adjudication; the court's role is limited to assessing willful disobedience of specific orders.
Wilful disobedience, as an essential element of civil contempt, requires a high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and involves a mental element of intentional, conscious, and calculated condu....
In contempt proceedings, the court has limited jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate claims beyond compliance issues as defined in prior orders, reaffirming the need for independent adjudication in sepa....
Non-compliance in contempt proceedings must be willful and intentional; administrative delay does not constitute contempt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the appealability of a contempt Judge's order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules....
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
