IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.979 of 2008 RAM KISHORE CHOUDHARY Versus DR. RAJDEO SINGH & ORS ----------- 8. 19.1.2010 The petitioner claims willful disobedience by the opposite parties of the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the writ petitions; he has filed the contempt application claiming that similar reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled have not been granted to him and thus the opposite party- officials of the University are liable to be proceeded for contempt of this Court. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not necessary to file a writ petition in order to file a contempt petition against the opposite parties for them to be held guilty of wilful disobedience of any order of this Court. In support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal and another: (2003) 3 S.C.C.171, in paragraph No. 14 of which it has been held as - 2 - follows: “14. In order to appreciate the exact connotation of the expression “initiate any proceedings for contempt” we may notice several situations or stages which may arise before the court dealing with contempt proceedings. These are: (i)(a) a private party may file or present an application or petition for initiating any proceedings for civil contempt; Or (b) the Court may receive a motion or reference from the Advocate General or with his consent in writing from any other person or a specified law officer or a court subordinate to the High Court; (ii)(a)the Court may in routine issue notice to the person sought to be proceeded against; Or (b) the Court may issue notice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause why the proceedings for contempt be not initiated; (iii) the court may issue notice to the persons sought to be proceeded against calling upon him to show cause why he be not punished for contempt.” He further relies upon another decision of the Apex Court in the Case of D.N. Taneja v.Bhajan Lal: (1988) 3 S.C.C. 26, paragraph No.12 of which is quoted below: “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 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 - 3 - 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”. This Court does not find that any such proposition has been laid down in the above decisions as is claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the officials of the State or the University can be held guilty of wilful disobedience of any order of this Court by not granting any benefit which the petitioner claims without his being party to the writ petition on the basis of which he makes such claim. No such proposition has been laid down in the case of Om Prakash Jaiswal (supra), rather the Apex Court has clearly held that the contempt is essentially between the Court and the contemner and the function of the petitioner is only to bring the facts to the notice of the Court. No fact has been brought on the record by the petitioner to show that an order in his favour has been passed by the Court, which has been wilfully disobeyed by the University. - 4 - Thus, no case for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )