THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO LETTER PATENT APPEAL No.3 of 2015 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Mr.S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The present is the Letter Patent Appeal preferred against the order passed in contempt case by the learned Single Judge.

3. The order under challenge is the order passed in Contempt Case No.1889 of 2013, decided on 29.12.2014. The contempt case was filed by the respondents herein alleging willful non-compliance of the directions issued by the Writ Court in WPMP.NO.12256 of 2012 in WP.No.27141 of 2011 decided on 23.04.2012. However, in the course of deciding the contempt case it stood disposed of by the learned Single Judge holding as such:

“ In the above circumstances, petitioners 1, 2 and 4 are directed to submit the original certificates to the respondent Bank on 22.02.2015 and on submission of such certificates, the respondent Bank shall create supernumerary posts and pass necessary orders giving appointment to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 and as and when regular vacancies arise, the petitioners shall be absorbed into those posts.”

4. The appeal is today coming up for consideration after considerable long period of time. Today, learned counsel for the appellant submits that pending appeal before this Court, all the respondents infact have crossed the age of superannuation and stand retired from service. Secondly, it was contended that order that was passed in the contempt case could not have been passed inasmuch as the Contempt Court has decided the contempt petition as if it was deciding the writ petition and directions have been issued for compliance in the contempt petition. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant such directions could not have been issued by the Contempt Court where the only scope that the learned Single Judge had was to ascertain whether there is any willful disobedience or non-compliance of the order of the Writ Court on 23.04.2012 and if there is a willful disobedience what punishment could be imposed upon the officers who have been violated the order of the Writ Court. Having not taken such a part and having disposed of contempt case with yet another direction, the order amounts to be in excess of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

5. We are in full agreement with the argument that was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant so far as the Contempt Court not having jurisdiction and power to issue directions for compliance to the Contemnor. The view of this Court as also the stand of learned counsel for the appellant stands fortified from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, 2006(2) ALD 30 (SC)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.6 held as under:

“ If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible”.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, considering the fact that the order passed by the Contempt Court