Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
S.K. Mishra, R.C. Khulbe, JJ.
Rajkumar Adlakha - Petitioner
And
The Cantonment Board Landour & others – Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1243 of 2022
Decided On : 20-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal
For the Respondent: Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel, Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned Standing Counsel.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that procedural law is the handmaid of substantive justice, and the court should uphold substantive law and not hide behind technicalities.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Liberty to file fresh writ petition - Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act - 20 - Summary: The court addressed the issue of whether, after dismissing a contempt petition under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court’s Act for the same cause of action, the court exercising its power under Section 12 of the Act can reserve a liberty to file a fresh writ petition for the same cause of action. The court held that once a matter is decided on merit and contempt is dismissed on the question of limitation, it is not open to the court to grant any liberty to re-agitate the matter. However, if no order/findings have been recorded as far as the merit of the case is concerned, and an innocuous order has been passed giving the liberty to file a representation before the authorities, then the court can grant the liberty to re-agitate the matter. The court also emphasized that procedural law is the handmaid of substantive justice and that the practice of giving direction for disposal of the representation has been evolved to meet the heavy pendency and filing in the High Court. The court referred to relevant case law to support its interpretation of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the mutation application of the petitioner and to enter the name of the petitioner in the General Land Record as the owner of the property. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Defence Estate Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that once a matter is decided on merit and contempt is dismissed on the question of limitation, it is not open to the court to grant any liberty to re-agitate the matter. However, if no order/findings have been recorded as far as the merit of the case is concerned, and an innocuous order has been passed giving the liberty to file a representation before the authorities, then the court can grant the liberty to re-agitate the matter.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the court's authority to grant liberty to file a fresh writ petition after dismissing a contempt petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a matter is decided on merit and contempt is dismissed on the question of limitation, it is not open to the court to grant any liberty to re-agitate the matter. However, if no order/findings have been recorded as far as the merit of the case is concerned, and an innocuous order has been passed giving the liberty to file a representation before the authorities, then the court can grant the liberty to re-agitate the matter.
Final Decision: The court answered the questions and requested the learned Single Judge to adjudicate the matter on merits.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. MISHRA, J.
This matter is taken up on being referred by the learned Single Judge to the Larger Bench to answer the following two questions :-
“1. As to whether while dismissing the contempt petition under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court’s Act for the same cause of action, whether the Court exercising its power under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, can reserve a liberty to file a fresh writ petition for the same cause of action?
2. Whether as a consequence of the dismissal of the contempt petition under Section 20 of the Act, will not the order granting the liberty to file a fresh writ petition being in contradiction to the dismissal of the contempt under Section 20?”
2. Facts leading to this case are simple. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (M/S) No.138 of 2018 by making a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to allow the mutation application of the petitioner and to enter the name of the petitioner in the General Land Record as the owner of the property. The writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 11.01.2018, and the learned Single Judge disposed of the same on the first date itself by making following observations:-
“According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner made an application to the Defence Estate Officer (respondent no. 6) for mutation of a property situated in Landour Cantonment, Landour, Mussoorie which was gifted to him by the erstwhile owner in the year 1994.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such application for mutation was made on 20.08.1999 but no decision as been taken so far. He confines his prayer and submits that Competent Authority/Defence Estate Officer be directed to look into the matter and take appropriate decision on petitioner’s application.
Prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is innocuous and deserves to be accepted.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to make fresh representation to the Defence Estate Officer alongwith all necessary documents, within two weeks from today. If such representation is made, the Defence Estate Officer shall take decision on petitioner’s representation by passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law, within ten weeks thereafter”.
3. Thereafter, the authorities did not consider the case of the petitioner. Hence, he filed a Contempt Petition bearing CLCON No.118 of 2022. It was dismissed on 06.05.2022, on the question of limitation, but the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition. We quote the relevant paragraphs of the order as under:-
“In view of provision contained in Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against respondent at this belated stage. Section 20 of the said Act provides for limitation period of one year and in the present case, there is delay of more than three years.
In such view of the matter, contempt petition is dismissed on the ground of delay with liberty to petitioner to approach the Writ Court”.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition bearing Writ Petition (M/S) No.1243 of 2022. It came before the learned Single Judge, who was in respectfully disagreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 06.05.2022 granting him the liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
5. In the order dated 10.06.2022, the learned Single Judge has observed that he is of the view that the order dated 06.05.2022, granting the liberty, runs in contravention to the provisions contained under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, because once the contempt has been dismissed on an issue which was raised as back as in 2018, in view of the bar created under Section 20 of the Act, at that very moment itself as per the opinion of the learned Single Judge, no new avenues can be left open for the petitioner to be re-agitated by filing a fresh writ petition for the same relief which has been
