9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in Writ Petition No.767 of 2000 as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1049 and 1050 of 2002 on 31.8.2005. 2. The contempt petitioners are the teachers working in non-aided English Medium School known as Shri Shivaji Vidyaniketan at Rahuri District Ahmednagar. The school run by educational institution Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar, a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 03. Present contempt petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.767 of 2000 against the above School, as also State of Maharashtra, the Educational Institution, through its Secretary and President Deputy Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune Division, Pune, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. The grievance of the petitioners in the Writ Petition was that they were not given benefits of pay-scales recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission. As stated earlier, the Writ Petition came to be decided on 17.11.2000 by Division Bench of this Court. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment read as under; 14. We, therefore, allow the petition partly in terms of the following order. (i) The petitioners are entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 to 7 reply affidavits have been filed on record. It is argued before this Court that Shri Shivaji Vidya Niketan is a school run by Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, which is a trust. The trust was established by Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhan (hereinafter referred to as Rahuri SSK ) and some of the directors of Rahuri SSK automatically become ex-officio trustees of the said Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. The school is a residential school in which non-residential students are also admitted. The only source of income is the fees charged to the students. The defence taken before this court by the Respondents-contemnors is many-fold. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that some of the persons who are parties to the original proceedings before the High High Court/Supreme Court have retired by the time compliance of the orders of the Court was required. New election of Dr.Baburao Bapuji Tanpure Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (which is also described as Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana at some places) is held on 27.11.2005 and new Board of Directors took over charge on 18.12.2005 and two directors (Respondent Nos. 5 and 6) as ex-officio members have assumed charge of the pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 has stated that prior to the order of the Supreme Court dated 31.8.2005, on 21.7.2005 the process of election of the Board of Directors of the Sugar factory had commenced by preparation of voters list. The election of the board of directors was held on 27.11.2005 and results were declared on 29.11.2005. It has also been stated in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that though Respondent No. 4 was member of the Board of Directors his tenure in previous body was only upto 29.11.2005 and from 29.11.2005 new Board of Directors came in management pursuant to fresh elections and, therefore, the orders of the court could not be complied with or implemented. It is submitted that once the elections are declared, the Board of Directors has no right to take any policy decision. It is further stated in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit that the Sugar factory, which was the parent body of the trust, was running into losses from the year 2000 onwards. The balance-sheet as on 31.3.2005 shows that there was accumulated loss of about Rs.27.00 crores which continued even thereafter. The copy of the balance-sheet is annexed as Annexure R-2 with the affidavit. It is also stated by Respondent No. 4 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titution in question. In support of his say, the copy of balance sheet of the trust is produced on record as Annexure X-2 with affidavit. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, it is stated that there were loans outstanding and Mahanagar Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ahmednagar had issued notice to the trust to repay the dues. The copy of notice is annexed as Annexure X-5 with the affidavit. In paragraph 9, it has been said that there was and is no willful disobedience on his part. Due to precarious financial condition of the school and the trust, it was beyond their capacity to comply with the orders of the court. 12. Along with affidavit in reply dated 10.7.2009 filed by Respondent No.6 on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 to 7, he has produced certain documents, such as, the copies of balance-sheet receipt and expenditure statement of the educational institution which are marked as Exhibit R-1 collectively. These documents clearly show that the trust is running into heavy losses and it is in financial difficulties. It is further stated that Respondent No. 7, who was Principal of the School, has retired on superannuation. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it is stated that the trust is also running s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikar, 2004 (1) ALL MR 573, the contemnor explained compelling circumstances under which he could not obey the court order and being satisfied with the explanation and in the facts of that case, it was held that he cannot be said to have willfully disobeyed the order and therefore cannot be punished for contempt. Learned counsel for Respondents particularly relied upon paragraphs 3,4 and 8 of the judgment. 15. The second case cited is Jiwani Kumari Parekh vs. Satyabrata Chakravorty AIR 1991 SC 326, and more particularly paragraph 6 which reads :- In our opinion, before a party can be committed for contempt, there must be a willful or deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Court. In the present case, we do not find that any such willful or deliberate or reckless disobedience of our order dated Jan. 16,1990, has been committed by the respondent to the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 16. The third case cited on the same point is of Mohammad Salam vs. S.A. Azmi 2001 (1) Mh.L.J.249. Therein, the order of the School Tribunal was to be obeyed and it was held that the proper procedure was to get that order executed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1971, which empowers the High Court to punish the contemnor for the contempt of the Supreme Court. 5. Shri Shinde, argued that in accordance with the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is a Court of record and the provision further provides that High Court shall have the powers of such Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The expression itself used in Article 215 is of much significance and cannot be said to include the contempt of the Supreme Court. Shri Shinde, argued that power of the High Court to punish for the contempt of the subordinate courts is derived by the High Court under the provisions of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 and not under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is further the contention of the learned Asstt. Government Pleader that Article 129 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the Supreme Court is also a Court of recored and has power to punish for the contempt of itself . However, when the Supreme Court exercises the power under Article 129 to punish for the contempt of High Court, the same can be said to be with the aid of Article 142 of the Constitution. Thus, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I am bound by said Division Bench Ruling. The main argument advanced on behalf of the Respondents is that merely because they are unable to comply with the orders because of the financial condition of the trust or the sugar factory that should not be a reason for punishing the Respondents for contempt. It is not wilful disobedience on their part, but it is their inability to comply with the orders of the court because of financial difficulties and inability to raise funds. Learned counsel for the Respondents relied upon various statements of accounts produced on record with the affidavits in reply and argued that in fact,the educational trust is being run in spite of loss. I particularly refer to the documents filed with affidavit in reply on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 on 10.7.2009. Those are various statements of receipts and expenditures on various heads. After going through the same I am satisfied that it is not a case of wilful disobedience, but financial difficulties is the main reason for non compliance of the orders of the court. 24. Learned Counsel for Respondents drew my attention to Rule 21 of Chapter 17 of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side, Service Rule 1960 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
