9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the writ petition on 31st August, 2006, directed as under:- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 Sri Sanjay Bhasin, informs that the authorities are bound to act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and the various Government Orders i.e. Government order dated 15.7.2003 and 13.7.2005 issued in the light of the judgment of this Court at Allahabad. In the light of the above no further directions are required to be issued by this Court. In the circumstances, the authorities must ensure and stick on the fair statement made on behalf of the respondents. With these observations the writ petition is finally disposed of. 5. Indisputably clarification as regards interpretation of various directions/observations made in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) fell for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, [ (2003) 6 SCC 697 ]. The mater did not stop there. Another Seven Judge Bench was constituted to interpret the directions issued in Islamic Academy of Education (supra) vis- `-vis T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra). In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, [ (2005) 6 SCC 537 ] wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court could also issue appropriate direction to close breach. 10. An intra court appeal by way of Special Appeal was filed thereagainst by the respondent No.1. Appellant herein raised a question of maintainability of the said appeal. A Division Bench of the Court (Coram : Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla, J. and Hon'ble D.V. Sharma, J.) on 17th October, 2006 held the said appeal to be maintainable but did not assign any reason in support thereof immediately, but stated :-. In this Special; Appeal, the Stamp Reporter has reported that it has been presented beyond 4 days of the statutory period. Admittedly, on 13th September, 2006 the appellant was not being represented before the learned Single Judge. However, notices were issued on 13.9.2006, which was served upon the appellant on 21st September, 2006. Therefore, it cannot be said that appeal has been filed beyond 4 days of the period prescribed by the Limitation Act. By the order dated 13.9.2006 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.2053 of 2006 (contempt jurisdiction) the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to issue notices calling upon the respondents including the appellant to file counter affidavit and stayed the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commission of contempt. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Babulal v. Municipal Corpn., Ratlam, [ (2005) 13 SCC 101], where it was held :-. 2. The High Court appears to have proceeded on the basis that it was settled law that a person not a party to the original proceedings cannot be proceeded against in contempt. The issue is a debatable one, particularly having regard to the law on the issue particularly in S.N. Banerjee v. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd. The order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back for reconsideration of the issue. 13. Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, on the other hand would contend :- (i) A valuable right of the appellant to receive fees from the students having been taken away by reason of the order passed by the learned Single Judge the Special Appeal was maintainable. (ii) As it is accepted that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act would have otherwise been maintainable before a Division Bench, it did not matter whether the Division Bench exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act or under the Letters Patent of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was not a party to the judgment. 17. The learned Single Judge did not address itself to this aspect of the matter at all. Ordinarily, a person if not a party to the lis and no direction having been issued against him, a contempt petition against him would not lie. Whether an exceptional case has been made out against him is yet to be determined. 18. In S.N. Banerjee v. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd., [AIR 1938 PC 295], it has been observed :- The question whether a contempt committed not by any person inhibited by injunction for breach of that injunction but by a person said to have aided and abetted a person so inhibited in breaking the injunction is of such a criminal nature as to prevent an appeal has given rise to much controversy, controversy which in the present case this Board does not think it necessary to resolve. The respondents themselves when petitioning the Court asked the Court to issue notice upon the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt for disobedience of the injunction. Strictly speaking this was a wrong remedy to ask against Ghose and Banerjee. The injunction was not binding on them and they had never disobeye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to interfere with the impugned judgment or quash both the orders of the Division Bench and the Single Bench on the legal principle that if setting aside of an illegal order gives rise to another illegal order both orders may be quashed. [See Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan Anr. [(2003) 6 SCC 545]; and Dove Investments Pvt. Ltd. Ors. v. Gujarat Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd. Anr. [(2006) 2 SCC 619]. 23. The question as to whether a person, although not a party in the original writ proceedings, could be proceeded against, is a debatable one. Such a question, therefore, was required to be determined at the threshold. If prima facie two views are possible and unless it is firmly held that the respondent No.1 not only was bound by the directions issued by the High Court but he had also defied it willfully and deliberately, he cannot be punished for commission of contempt. If, prima facie, appellant cannot be punished for commission of contempt of the High Court, an interim order also should have not been passed. We draw inspiration in this regard from a decision of this Court in The State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari [AIR 1961 SC 221]which has since been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). XXX XXX XXX 15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories : (i) to (iii) ... (iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. 26. We may, however, notice that in an earlier decision of this Court in R.N. Dey Ors (suspra) it was opined : In our view the aforesaid contention for the learned counsel for the respondents requires to be rejected on the ground that after receipt of the notice, officers concerned tendered unconditiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
