Contempt Action Should Be Avoided When Order For Compliance Is Challenged Under Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the contempt court should avoid taking action when the order for compliance is challenged under appeal.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma said that, "the contempt action has to be sparingly drawn, and, is to be avoided to be drawn, as a measure to coerce the purported errant litigant to make compliances with certain directions or orders, especially when the relief granted by the writ Court becomes appealed against, whereupon the outcome of the availed remedy by the purported errant litigant rather is prima facie required to be awaited."
The Court added that the Courts should use contempt power with "immense care" "as ultimately the objective of rearing of an able contempt petition, thus is to ensure the maintaining of the majesty, and, dignity of self speaking binding orders/directions passed by the Courts of law."
These observations were made while hearing the appeal against an order whereby the contempt action was initiated against the Authorities for non-compliance of a High Court's decision.
Assistant Director (Statistics) Industries and Commerce Department, Anil Kumar was terminated from the services. The plea was filed challenging the termination, the Court set aside the termination order and directed the employee to pass a fresh order. The authorities found that the employee was not full filling the eligibility criteria and Kumar was again terminated from service and the High Court's order was also challenged.
In this backdrop a contempt plea was filed alleging non compliance of High Court's decision. The single judge hearing the Contempt plea opined, "no merit can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner merely having assailed the speaking order dated 22.04.2024 by way of fresh writ petition is not entitled for the benefit of arrears of salary as claimed by him as the remedies before the Contempt Court and the Writ Court are distinct and separate."
"The petitioner can always assail the fresh speaking order by way of filing civil writ petition, however, for want of effective compliance of the order passed in the earlier writ petition, he has the remedy of invoking contempt jurisdiction alleging the non-compliance to be willful and intentional," added the single judge.
The order of single judge was challenged in the present proceeding before the division bench.
After hearing the submissions, the division bench opined that the single judge should have waited the outcome of the appeal and entertaining the contempt plea at this stage is "premature, besides a misconstituted contempt petition."
The Court also answered whether the the Contempt Court, can substitute itself into an Executing Court, and, that too when an appeal against the relevant order/direction is subjudice.
Answering the question in negative, the Court referred to R.N.Dey versus Bhagyabati Pramanik and others [(2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 400], to underscore that, "We may reiterate that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Court's dignity and majesty of law."
The bench opined that the single bench of contempt court erred in taking action and "supplanted, beside substituted itself into the Writ Court, whereas, the Writ Court alone was the sole repository of an able jurisdiction, to decide the tenacity of the claim raised by the present respondent."
In the light of the above, the appeal was allowed.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana
Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana and Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Vir Sharda, Advocate for the respondent.
Title: Anand Mohan Saran and others v. Anil Kumar