9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Single Judge to pass further orders altering the previous judgment. 2. Allegations of contempt of court for non-compliance with the court's order. 3. Validity of election procedures and voters' list. 4. Appealability of the order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Single Judge to Pass Further Orders Altering the Previous Judgment: The appeal contested the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to pass the impugned judgment and order, which altered the previous order dated 21.7.89. The learned Single Judge was of the view that he could justifiably give appropriate further directions in the matter of holding the election since his earlier judgment dated 21.7.89 had the approval of the apex Court. However, the appellants argued that it was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to effect changes from the earlier order by passing further orders and directions. The court noted that the learned Single Judge made several changes from his earlier order, such as appointing the Assistant District Judge as the Returning Officer and directing the immediate declaration of results after counting. 2. Allegations of Contempt of Court for Non-Compliance with the Court's Order: The contempt application alleged that the appellants and other respondents violated the court's order dated 21.7.89 by not allowing the Special Officers to conduct the election. The learned Single Judge issued a Rule Nisi against the appellants and other respondents but did not come to a specific finding as to whether a case for contempt had been made out. The learned Single Judge focused on passing effective directions to hold the election rather than determining the guilt of the contemners. 3. Validity of Election Procedures and Voters' List: The appellants raised concerns about the election procedures and the voters' list prepared by the Special Officers, alleging discrepancies and irregularities. They contended that the voters' list was partisan and excluded bona fide members while including ineligible persons. The learned Single Judge directed the election to be held in the compound of the District Judge's Court, Alipur, under the supervision of the Assistant District Judge. However, the court found that judicial officers should not be personally involved in the election process to avoid embarrassment and directed the Special Officers to serve as Returning Officers. 4. Appealability of the Order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The respondents argued that the order was not appealable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as no punishment was imposed. The court, however, held that Section 19(1) provides for an appeal against any "order or decision" of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The court cited previous judgments to support the view that an appeal lies from any order or decision that prejudicially affects a party, even if no punishment is imposed. The court concluded that the learned Single Judge went beyond his jurisdiction in passing the order under appeal without deciding whether contempt had been committed. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with directions for the Special Officers to decide upon an election schedule and venue after scrutinizing the voters' list. The election was to be held by secret ballot with police protection, and the newly elected Executive Committee was to assume office with the leave of the Additional District Judge. The court emphasized that judicial officers should not be personally involved in the election process. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
|
