A recall application in contempt proceedings is not maintainable unless expressly permitted by statute.

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-

Heard Shri Amitabh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel representing the Opposite Parties.

2. The instant. Application under Section 15 of the CAT Procedure Rules, 1987 has been filed for recalling of the order dated 25.11.2023 passed in C.P. No.07/2017. Operative portion of the order reads as under:-

“7. It appears from the aforesaid order that the representation has been duly considered, each and every point has been answered. If the petitioner having any grievance against the aforesaid order, he is free to challenge the aforesaid order by filing the appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. No further proceedings are required in this case. Hence, the contempt proceedings are dropped and the respondent is discharge from his liability. All the pending MA’s, if any, will be treated as disposed of.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in absence of counsel for the applicant, the order dated 25.11.2023 was passed in C.P. No.07/2017 and as such, order dated 25.11.2023 may kindly be recalled.

4. It appears that order of this Tribunal dated 25.11.2023 passed in C.P. No.07/2017 on merits as the order of this Tribunal was complied with by the respondents.

5. Further, it is important to note that a Review Application is not maintainable against an order passed in contempt proceedings, unless specifically permitted under the statute. The Contempt of Courts PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Act, 1971 provides for an appeal under Section 19 only against an order imposing punishment. There is no provision for a review/recall of an order passed in contempt matters.

6. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 , the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice and the Central Administrative Tribunal (Contempt of Court) Rules, 1992, do not confer any power on the Tribunal to entertain a review or recall of its own order passed on merits in a contempt petition.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1814, held that:

"It is well settled that review is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of a provision therefrom.”

8. The Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1111/2000 ( Satyapal Singh v. I.M.G. Khan ), in its decision dated 11.06.2013, considered the issue of maintainability of review/recall applications in contempt proceedings and held categorically that:

“24. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is our considered view that recall application is not maintainable against an order passed in a contempt case decided on merits. ………..”

9. This view has been consistently followed and upheld in subsequent judgments, including by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 66/2013 ( Mahavir Prasad v. CAT, Lucknow Bench ) by observing that recall/ review application is not maintainable.

10. In view of the above discussions, instant recall application is not maintainable. Accordingly, instant application stands dismissed as not maintainable.

11. Pending M.A., if any, will be treated as disposed of.

12. M.A., if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.