Not Liable For Contempt If Undertaking Is Given By Unauthorised Person: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the charges framed for contempt of court, observing that the undertaking given by the State counsel following the instruction of the official was not authorised to give the undertaking.

A case seeking direction for conducting exam of Kanungo for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar was filed, however the same was disposed of in view of the undertaking given by the State counsel following the instruction of Inspector, Director Land Record, that the same will be conducted within two months. The charges for contempt of court was framed when the exam was not conducted within time frame submitted before the Court.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "neither any willful nor any intentional disobedience became caused to the order..., which otherwise for reasons...is prima facie banked upon flawed instruction(s) becoming received and thereafters also becoming successfully thereonwards, thus becoming conveyed to this Court, but without evident exercisings of care and caution."

The bench also observed that since the Inspector lacked authority to instruct the State counsel the undertaking "lacks credence."

It also opined that the Single judge made the decision of framing charges for contempt of court in the most slipshod manner.

"the learned Contempt Bench did evidently ill maneuver itself to not only ride roughshod over the apposite extenuating circumstance, wherebys the said justifiable extenuating circumstance but in a most slipshod manner, thus became completely overlooked, but subsequently also proceeded to make an ill categorical finding that the order (supra) became willfully disobeyed," noted the Court.

These observations were made while hearing the appeal against the order of a single judge whereby it directed to frame charges under Contempt of Court Act for wilful disobedience of undertaking given by Inspector, Director Land Record to conduct departmental exam for promotion of Naib Tehsildar within two months.

The bench said that the single judge overlooked that the reason given by the department that the officials are busy in the election duty was justifiable and moreover, the undertaking lacked authority.

It stated further that the "the ill prolongations of the trauma and agony, which the appellants would face, thus is required to be ebbed at this very stage."

Stating that there is merit in the appeal, the Court discharged the authorities from the contempt of court charges.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G. Haryana, Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG & Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: T.V.S.N. Prasad and others v. Resham Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 341

Click here to read/download the order