Personal Service Of Contempt Notice Is An Essential Requirement Of Law; Service Through Office Not Sufficient: Allahabad High Court

It has ruled that service on the contemner through the official attached with him is a clear violation of the prescribed Rules and cannot in any way be presumed personal service.

"Contempt Court notices are to be served on the alleged contemnor and not in his office or upon his orderly or any officer attached with the alleged contemnor," a Single Bench of Justice Abdul Moin observed.

The Bench also provided that,

"in case the officer concerned effecting service feels any difficulty in service of the contempt notice upon the alleged contemnor personally then the said fact would clearly be indicated in the notice itself and be informed to the Court concerned upon which it would be open for the Court to take other suitable action against the alleged contemnor/addressee."

Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Section 23 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 categorically provides that where an order has been made directing that notice be issued to any person to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of Court, a date shall be fixed for hearing and a notice thereof be given to the "person concerned".

In the instant contempt proceedings arising out of alleged wilful disobedience of Court order dated December 7, 2020, the Standing Counsel submitted that he does not have any instructions in the matter (despite service of notice upon Respondents).

The Bench was also informed that notices had been served on the Respondents through their respective offices.

On the former issue, the Bench remarked,

"Non-sending of instructions in the contempt petition more particularly when notices have already been served upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 through their office thus prima facie indicates the cavalier attitude on the part of the respondents."

It therefore called upon the Respondents to appear in person and file their affidavits indicating therein

(a) as to why the instructions have not been sent to the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel despite service of notice upon them through their offices,

(b) as to why the order passed by the writ Court has not been complied with despite the special appeal having been dismissed by the Division Bench, and

(c) as to why action be not initiated against them for deliberate and willful disobedience and defiance of the order passed by the writ Court as affirmed by the Division Bench in the special appeal.

On the issue of service through office, the Bench noted,

"Earlier too, upon finding that contempt notices were being affected on the orderly of the officer concerned or the official attached with the said officer to whom the notice had been issued, the Registrar General of this Court had directed all the learned District Judges subordinate to the High Court vide his order dated 21.03.2001 that care should be taken of following Rule 6 of the Rules.

Despite almost more than two decades having lapsed since the issuance of the administrative order dated 21.03.2001 and the rules having been framed in this regard way back in the year 1977 yet the rules and the administrative orders are not being complied with and the notices for contempt are being served upon officer concerned through their office."

Though the Court was inclined to take a strict view in the matter but, as a last opportunity it has reiterated that henceforth all concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall ensure that the contempt notices are served on the addressee alone and not in his office or on any subordinate official attached with him.

Case Title: Syed Amjad Husain v. Navneet Sahgal & Anr.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order