9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for contempt under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Scope of consideration in contempt proceedings - Examination of validity of order in contempt proceedings - Contumacious conduct - Impossibility to obey court order - Rightness or wrongness of court order in contempt proceedings - Review jurisdiction in contempt proceedings - Dispute post re-organisation of States. Analysis: The appellant filed an application under Sections 11 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance of directions given by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the contempt proceedings, held that it would not be proper to take action for contempt as he examined the correctness of the order. The appellant's counsel argued that the learned Single Judge erred by sitting in judgment over another judge's decision and that examining the validity of the order was beyond the scope of contempt proceedings. In response, the State's counsel contended that if an order was not implementable, the court could consider its legality in contempt proceedings. The court, while dealing with contempt, is concerned with compliance with the earlier decision, not its correctness. The court cannot decide differently from the original decision without it being challenged. The court referred to precedents emphasizing that contumacious conduct is the focus in contempt cases and any legal issues with the order should be raised in a higher court. The court distinguished a previous case where the State took conflicting stands on order compliance. It emphasized that impossibility to obey an order should be raised in appellate proceedings, not in contempt. The court cited cases highlighting that orders, right or wrong, must be obeyed, and challenging their validity is not permissible in contempt proceedings. The court set aside the High Court's order, remitting the matter for fresh consideration without expressing an opinion on the contempt application's merit. Additionally, the judgment noted a dispute post re-organisation of States, with the State of Jharkhand substituted for the original respondent, the State of Bihar. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of obeying court orders regardless of the final outcome in the main proceedings.
|
