[1] S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.34/2007 In S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 205/2005 In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1596/2000 (Dr. Nand Kumar Joshi Vs. G.S. Sandhu & Ors.) Date of Order:14/10/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr. Rajvir Sharma, for the petitioner(s). This misc. application has been filed by the petitioner in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 205/05 for recalling of the order dated 06/02/2007. 2. The contempt petition (205/05) was filed by the petitioner for compliance of the order dated 24/05/2004 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1596/2000 titled as Dr. Nand Kumar Joshi versus State of Rajasthan. The High Court considered the contempt petition and dismissed the same vide order dated 06/02/2007. It is for recalling of the said order that this misc. application has been filed. 3. In my considered opinion this misc. application for recalling the order passed by the High Court dismissing the contempt petition on 06/02/2007 is misconceived and not maintainable for reasons more than one. It is a settled principle of law that once a contempt petition is rejected by a Court then the said order is final and no appeal under the Act lies. The legislature in its wisdom while enacting the Contempt of Courts [2] Act 1971 has provided an appeal from the order of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In other words, if a Court is of the view that no contempt is made out and the contemnor is not to be punished then against such an order no appeal lies. In the case of D.N. Taneja versus Bhajan Lal (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 26, held as under:- 8. The right of appeal will be available under sub-section (1) of Section 19 only against any decision or order of a High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the provision of Article 215 of the Constitution which provides that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 215 confers on the High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself. In other words, the High Court derives its jurisdiction to punish for contempt from Article 215 of the Constitution. As has been noticed earlier, an appeal will lie under Section 19(1) of the Act only when the High Court makes an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent and, in our opinion rightly, that the High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt. When the High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged contemnor, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to punish. When no punishment is imposed by the High Court, it is difficult to say that the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution. 10. There can be no doubt that whenever court, tribunal or authority is vested with a jurisdiction to decide a matter, such jurisdiction can be exercised in deciding the matter in favour or against a person. For example, a civil court is conferred with the [3] jurisdiction to decide a suit ; the civil court will have undoubtedly the jurisdiction to decree the suit or dismiss the same. But when a court is conferred with the power or jurisdiction to act in a particular manner, the exercise of jurisdiction or the power will involve the acting in that particular manner and in no other. Article 215 confers jurisdiction or power on the High Court to punish for contempt. The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction only by punishing for contempt. It is true that in considering a question whether the alleged contemnor is guilty of contempt or not, the court hears the parties and considers the materials produced before it and, if necessary, examines witnesses and, thereafter, passes an order either acquitting or punishing him for contempt. When the High Court acquits the contemnor, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction for contempt, for such exercise will mean that the High Court should act in a particular manner, that is to say, by imposing punishment for contempt. So long as no punishment is imposed by the High court, the High Court cannot be said to be exercising its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution. 11. It does not, however, mean that when the High Court erroneously acquits a contemnor guilty of criminal contempt, the petitioner who is interested in maintaining the dignity of the court will be without any remedy. Even though no appeal is maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Act, the petitioner in such a case can move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, the contention, as advanced on behalf of the appellant, that there would be no remedy against the erroneous or perverse decision of the High Court in not exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, is not correct. But, in such a case there would be no right of appeal under Section 19(1), as there is no exercise of jurisdiction or power by the High Court to punish for contempt. The view which we take finds support from a decision of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra. 12. Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the question whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the [4] provision of the statute and not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration. In this connection, it may be noticed that there was no right of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. It is for the first time that under Section 19(1) of the Act, a right of appeal has been provided for. A contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor. Any person who moves the machinery of the court for contempt only brings to the notice of the court certain facts constituting contempt of court. After furnishing such information he may still assist the court, but it must always be borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only two parties, namely, the court and the contemnor. It may be one of the reasons which weighed with the legislature in not conferring any right of appeal on the petitioner for contempt. The aggrieved party under Section 19(1) can only be the contemnor who has been punished for contempt of court.” Secondly, it is also a settled principles of law that once an order of rejection of the petition is passed by a Court then the said decision cannot be reversed by way of review petition. 4. In case any grievance of the petitioner still remains after passing of the order by the High Court in the contempt petition on 06/02/2007 then he may still approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for compliance of the judgment dated 24/05/2004 passed in the writ petition no. 1596/2000. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board versus C. Muddaiah (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 689, wherein it has been observed thus:- 6. “Since consequential benefits were not [5] extended to him, the writ petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 12 of 1998 which was dismissed. Similarly, another Contempt Petition No. 1134 of 1999 was also dismissed. He, thereafter, filed a substantive petition, being Writ Petition No. 10722 of 2000 contending that though an order was passed in the writ petition filed by him wherein directions were issued to reassign him seniority and consequential benefits, arrears of salary to which he was entitled, was not paid to him. The said action was clearly illegal, unlawful and not sustainable at law. A prayer was, therefore, made that the Board may be directed to extended monetary benefits as per the judgment rendered in the earlier litigation. The learned Single Judge, as observed above, dismissed the petition observing that the division Bench disposed of contempt petitions observing that the Board had complied with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 1848 of 1992. According to the learned Single Judge, if it were so, the writ petitioner could not contend that he was entitled to monetary benefits from the date he was denied seniority in the final gradation list of First Division Assistants prepared and published by the Board. The petition was, therefore, dismissed. Intra-court appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench. The Board has challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in this Court by filing this appeal. 10. According to the counsel, the learned Single Judge was wholly justified in dismissing the petition taking into consideration dismissal of contempt petitions and in observing that the complaint of the writ petitioner against non-compliance with the order of the Court was ill-founded. The Division Bench was in error in setting aside the said order and in allowing the appeal. He therefore, submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing the directions issued by the Division Bench and by restoring the order of the learned Single Judge. 27. In our opinion, the contention that no fresh petition could be filed by the respondent-writ petitioner in 2000 has also no substance. So far as contempt petitions are concerned, the Court held that the order [6] passed by the Court had been complied with and it could not be said that the Board or its officers were liable to be punished. An office memorandum dated 2-2-1998 is on record. It refers to a decision of the High Court dated 27-10-1997 in Writ Petition No. 1848 of 1992 and states as to how the direction of the Court has been complied with. The relevant part of the said order reads thus: “Accordingly, the promotion of Shri C. Muddaiah, be worked out with reference to the promotion accorded to Shri K. Srinath and the consequential benefit be allowed to Shri C. Muddaiah, as per the judgment referred to above.” 32. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a court of law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of the rule of law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected.” 5. Therefore, this misc. application filed in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 205/05 is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking redress of his grievance, if he so desires. (RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE),J. RameshJr.P.A. Item no.6. [7]