A statute carries a strong presumption of constitutionality; a challenge to its validity under Article 226 requires proof of manifest arbitrariness or clearly discriminatory classification, not merely personal grievance with procedural outcomes of judicial proceedings.

J U D G E M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to rescind/cancel/withdraw the impugned section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as having been rendered in – effective despite reportable judgment / order dated: 22-07-2024 passed in Civil Appeal nos. of 2024 [arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 19647-48 of 20221 S. Tirupathi Rao versus M. Lingamaiah & Ors with Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 [arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 19748-19749 of 2022] as ultra vires to the article 13, 14 and 20 of the Constitution of India ab initio;

B. A writ in the nature of Certiorari do issue commanding the respondents to transmit entire records pertaining to Impugned Act No: 70 of 1971 namely the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 notified by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India and on being so certified and after hearing the parties

declare section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as ultra vires to the article 13, 14 and 20 of the Constitution of India ab initio;

C. A writ in the nature of Declaration, declaring the impugned section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as ultra vires to the article 13, 14 and 20 of the Constitution of India ab initio; and

D. Ad Interim order to entertain all petitions after lapse of period of limitation u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ab initio till disposal of the writ petition.”

2. The petitioner claims to be a successful candidate of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and working as Under Secretary (Gr.I of IFS-B) attached with the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. The petitioner claims to be an interested party and respondent no.117 in the OA No. 1719/2012 which was pending before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as Tribunal) Principal Bench, New Delhi. The said OA was disposed of vide the judgment dated 29.02.2020 with the following direction:-

“21. Hence, the OA is allowed, and the orders impugned therein are set aside. The respondents 2 and 3 shall prepare the seniority list afresh in such a way that an SO promoted through LDCE is not treated as having been promoted with effect from any date, earlier to one on which he was actually promoted. If any promotions to higher posts have taken place in accordance with the impugned seniority list, the same shall be revisited. The exercise shall, however, be confined to the re-fixation of seniority and shall not lead to reversion of the officers who have already been promoted. The exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

3. Certain parties had challenged the said judgment by way of a Writ Petition bearing W.P. (C) No.4339/2020. After hearing the parties, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 05.07.2024, dismissed the writ petition finding no infirmity in the judgment dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal.

4. Premised on the allegation that the order of the learned Tribunal was not implemented, the applicants in OA No.1719/2012 filed a petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 bearing CP No.961/2024 before the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, some of the parties challenged the judgment dated 05.07.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 4339/2020 by