THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.214 OF 2010 DATED NOVEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Defence Laboratories School’s Staff Association, Hyderabad (Regd. No.2644/1992), Kanchanbagh, Vignana Kancha, Hyderabad – 00 058. … Petitioner And The Management Committee of Defence Laboratories Schools, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary Sri Vijaya Sarathi and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.214 OF 2010 ORDER: By order dated 09.10.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.16129 of 2009 in W.P.No.11616 of 2002, this Court, taking note of the pleadings and the fact that a detailed representation dated 19.02.2009 had been submitted by the petitioner association, directed respondents 3, 5, 7 and 9 therein to consider the said representation and pass a reasoned order within a time frame. Alleging that the said respondents had failed to consider the representation dated 19.02.2009 and pass a reasoned order thereupon, the petitioner association filed the present contempt case. Upon disposal of the application filed by the respondents seeking vacation of the above order, respondents 3, 5, 7 and 9 issued proceeding dated 06.03.2010 purportedly in compliance with the said order. Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner association, however contended that the proceeding dated 06.03.2010 does not constitute compliance with the order of this Court in true letter and spirit. The learned counsel pointed that this Court required the respondents to pass a ‘reasoned order’ upon the petitioner association’s representation and argued that the manner in which the respondents had dealt with the representation reflected scant regard to the points raised by the petitioner association and the material on record. Learned counsel submitted that ‘reasoned’ would mean reached according to law, not according to caprice, whim or fancy and therefore, this Court would be entitled, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, to examine whether the proceeding dated 06.03.2010 meets the standards of a ‘reasoned order’ as was directed to be passed by this Court. The learned counsel placed reliance on case law to support his contention. Per contra, Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, stated that the proceeding dated 06.03.2010 embodied proper compliance with the order passed by this Court, as the contentions of the petitioner association in its representation had been dealt with para-wise. The learned counsel submitted that this Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, would not go into the validity of the reasons contained in the said proceeding. He pointed out that the import of the direction passed by this Court was only ‘to consider and pass a reasoned order’ and therefore, in the absence of a positive direction, the petitioner association could not pin down the respondents to consider the said representation in a particular manner or dictate the result thereof. He also placed reliance on case law. Notwithstanding the copious exchange of pleadings and material and the vehement arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is conscious of the limitations inherent in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction. Unless there is wilful disobedience of this Court’s order bringing it within the definition of ‘civil contempt’, this Court would not be inclined to take action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The order passed by this Court, in effect, directed consideration of the petitioner association’s representation, which consideration was to be reflected by respondents 3, 5, 7 and 9 in a reasoned order. By the proceeding dated 06.03.2010, the said respondents claimed to have complied with the said order. The proceeding dated 06.03.2010 running into 3½ pages reflects that the petitioner association’s representation has been considered and responded to para-wise. The argument of Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel, is however to the effect that this consideration would not fulfill the requirements posited upon the respondents by this Court’s order as they were placed under a duty to reflect their consideration in a ‘reasoned order’. The thrust of the learned counsel’s argument is that this Court should undertake an examination of the reasons put forth in the proceeding dated 06.03.2010 to evaluate the consideration by the respondents of the petitioner association’s representation. Having given due consideration to this contention, this Court is not inclined to accept that such an exercise would fall within the ambit of its contempt jurisdiction. Reference may be made to the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in T.V.CHOWDARY v. RIATA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION[1]: “2. ……… It is trite to say that the scope and purport of the contempt jurisdiction is to see whether the order of the Court has been complied with, in substance or deliberately flouted. There is no positive direction to dispose of the application in a particular manner. Whether or not the concerned authority disposed of the mining lease application in accordance with law, is a matter on which some debate or controversy is possible. Whereas it is the contention of the writ petitioners that the order passed is not in accordance with law, it is the contention of the appellant that the order passed by him is in confirmity with law. The legality or propriety of the order passed by the appellant is liable to be tested in an independent proceeding either by way of revision or by filing writ petition. We arc not for a moment saying that the order passed by the appellant is valid. On that aspect, we express no opinion. At best, we are only concerned with the limited question whether the order of rejection was passed in a predetermined manner, and whether the whole exercise is farcical and colourable. We are unable to reach that conclusion. As observed already, we cannot subject the order to judicial review and go into the controversial questions as to whether the order passed is in accordance with law. As far as the Court dealing with Contempt is concerned, it can only embark upon a limited enquiry as indicated above. ………” Similar are the observations of the Supreme Court in J.S. PARIHAR v. GANPAT DUGGAR[2]: “5. ……… It is contended by Mr.S.K.Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is: whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re- exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. ………” In the light of the aforestated legal position, it is clear that this Court cannot embark upon a review of the proceeding dated 06.03.2010 to ascertain whether the reasons reflected therein are cogent and valid. Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel, submitted that the material placed on record in the present case would clearly demonstrate the truth and validity of his client’s assertion in this regard. Without any observation on merits in this regard, it would suffice to state that these contentions would perhaps be better suited for an independent challenge by the petitioner association in an appropriate proceeding. The Judgments relied upon by Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel, in C.SADHANANDAM v. PROF. RAMA MURTHY[3]; PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI v. PATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI[4]; T.R.DHANANJAYA v. VASUDEVAN[5] and DULI CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA[6] are of no avail to him as those were cases dealing with clear established contempt and did not require an enquiry on the merits of the compliance as is sought in the present case. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Judgment of a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court in U.P.LABORATORY TECHNICIANS’ ASSOCIATION v. SUMITA KANDPAL[7]. The direction passed by the Court in that case was to consider the representation made by the Senior Laboratory Technicians as to how and why they were entitled to higher pay scales owing to the nature of their duties which were more arduous than those of Laboratory Assistants. As there was no such consideration, the learned Judge was of the opinion that there was no compliance with the order and directed the respondents to comply with the order in its letter and spirit. The case therefore turned on its own peculiar facts. In any event, in the light of the Judgments passed by the Supreme Court and also this Court, no precedence can be given to the approach adopted by the learned Judge in the aforestated Judgment. Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel, relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in LALITH MATHUR v. L.MAHESWARA RAO[8], wherein the Supreme Court, while taking note of the fact that the High Court had only directed consideration of the respondent’s representation which culminated in its rejection on merits, found fault with the High Court for issuing directions in contempt proceedings to absorb the respondent in a suitable post. The Supreme Court observed that the order passed pursuant to the direction of the High Court should have been challenged in a fresh writ petition and that the respondent could not have taken recourse to contempt proceedings, which did not lie as the order had already been complied with. In the light of the aforestated legal position, the remedy for the petitioner association, if it is aggrieved by the proceeding dated 06.03.2010, is to seek judicial review of the same by way of appropriate proceedings independently. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, would not embark upon such an enquiry. As matters stand, the order passed by this Court on 09.10.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.16129 of 2009 in W.P.No.11616 of 2002 has been complied with. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner association, if it so desires, to challenge the proceeding dated 06.03.2010 in accordance with law. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ NOVEMBER, 2010. VGSR [1] 1998 (3) ALD 11 [2] AIR 1997 SC 113 [3] 1997 (3) ALT 743 (DB) [4] AIR 2008 SC 3016 [5] AIR 1996 SC 302 [6] AIR 1992 SC 777 [7] 1998 A I H C 284 [8] (2000) 10 SCC 285