Case: Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

petitioner who obstructed the administration of justice so as to justify initiation of contempt proceedings against an officer who joined five years later on the ground that he had sought the case number and the date of the order which was to be implemented in order to forestall the same when in fact it was already not implemented for a long number of years which was more than four years prior to the appellants posting in the High Court. As already stated, an officer in the registry who joined approximately five years later prior to the interim order of stay which was passed, he cannot legitimately be hauled up for contempt merely on unfounded assumption and speculation that it was he who was instrumental in obstructing the administration of justice by ensuring that the order of stay may not be implemented. 17. As already observed, the first and foremost onus to communicate an order of stay is on the counsel or the party in whose favour the order was passed by obtaining a certified copy of the order passed by the court and although the registry is also required to communicate the order to the concerned Court where it is required to be implemented, the same essentially is in the nature of a formal communication and if the same had not been communicated by the erstwhile officers of the registry for any reason whatsoever, including an assumed motive of its non-implementation, a proceeding for contempt could have been initiated against an officer who was posted at the relevant time and had failed to communicate the order to the concerned Court which had to implement it. But, after an unusually long lapse of time, which in this case is more than four years, an officer like the appellant who subsequently joined the registry, cannot be attributed with an oblique motive of obstructing the cause of justice merely because he had sought the case number and date of the order of stay from the Registrar (Vigilance) in order to furnish a copy of the order which was required by the Registrar (Vigilance). In fact, when the Registrar (Vigilance) sought a copy of the interim order of stay, it was his duty to specify the case number and the date of the order as it cannot be expected that the copy of the order could be sent to the Registrar (Vigilance) without the case number or its date. In any view, it would be too far fetched to infer that the same was done to shield the learned Judge of the MACT Shri Bansal against whom vigilance enquiry was ordered, completely missing the relevant point that he had already superannuated two years earlier after which the learned Single Judge himself had ordered for closure of the vigilance enquiry against him. 18. Besides this, it would also not be correct to overlook or ignore an important statutory ingredient of contempt of a civil nature given out u/s 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 that the disobedience to the order alleging contempt has to satisfy the test that it is a wilful disobedience to the order. Bearing this important factor in mind, it is relevant to note that a proceeding for civil contempt would not lie if the order alleged to have been disobeyed itself provides scope for reasonable or rational interpretation of an order or circumstance which is the factual position in the instant matter. It would equally not be correct to infer that a party although acting due to misapprehension of the correct legal position and in good faith without any motive to defeat or defy the order of the Court, should be viewed as a serious ground so as to give rise to a contempt proceeding. 19. To reinforce the aforesaid legal position further, it would be relevant and appropriate to take into consideration the settled legal position as reflected in the judgment and order delivered in the matter of Ahmad Ali Vs. Supdt., District Jail, AIR 1987 SC 1491 : Supp. SCC 556 that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt and although, disobedience might have been established, absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct. Thus, accidental or unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to justify one for holding guilty of contempt. It is further relevant to bear in mind the settled law on the law of contempt that casual or accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience under the circumstances which negate any suggestion of contumacy, would amount to a contempt in theory only and does not render the contemnor liable to punishment and this was the view expressed also in cases reported in AIR 1954 Patna 513, State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari and AIR 1957 Patna 528, N. Bakshi Vs. O.K. Ghosh. 20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the learned single Judge inferred and assumed erroneously that the appellant had the intention to obstruct the administration of justice by being instrumental in ensuring that the interim order passed in 2001 may not be implemented oblivious of the fact that the appellant was posted in the registry of the High Court only four years later in 2005 and hence non-implementation of the interim order of stay cannot be attributed to the appellant to shield the Judge of the MACT, Jaipur who had retired way back in the year 2003 against whom the enquiry was ordered to be closed by the learned Single Judge himself. Thus, initiation of the contempt proceeding against the petitioner by the learned single Judge is based on a wholly wrong premise based on unsustainable and unfounded facts which cannot be treated sufficient material so as to initiate contempt proceeding in spite of absence of any degree of fault or misconduct or even unintentional disobedience to the order for the reasons assigned hereinbefore.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]12. On a scrutiny of the sequence of events narrated hereinbefore, we are clearly of the view in the first place that the contempt alleged against the appellant would not amount to a criminal contempt because the alleged contempt even if made out would clearly at the best be of a civil nature, which is evident from Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 which lays down as follows:(a) contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt;(b) civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;(c) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;On perusal of the aforesaid provision enumerated under Section 2 quoted hereinbefore, it can clearly be inferred that the initiation of contempt proceeding against the petitioner even as it stands, would not give rise to a proceeding for criminal contempt and in any event the alleged contempt cannot be stretched beyond civil contempt under the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinbefore. Nevertheless, it would not be correct on behalf of the appellant to contend that the learned single Judge was not authorised to initiate contempt proceeding against the appellant merely because he was sitting in a single Bench although he might have been in a position to notice whether the alleged action at the instance of any party or anyone else who obstructed the cause of justice, amounted to contempt of Court of a civil or criminal nature and yet would be precluded from initiating suo moto contempt proceedings. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 clearly postulates the existence of only the following preconditions before a person can be held to have committed civil contempt:(i) There must be a judgment or order or decree or direction or writ or other process of a court; orAn undertaking given to a court;(ii) The judgment etc. must be of the court and undertaking must have been given to a court;(iii) There must be a disobedience to such judgment, etc. or breach of such undertaking;(iv) The disobedience or breach, as the case may be, must be wilfulHence, it would not be right to contend that even though the learned single Judge might have found material which persuaded him to form an opinion that a contempt has been committed, yet the learned Judge had no authority or jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding for contempt against the person who indulged in such action. Thus we find no substance in the plea which has been raised on behalf of the appellant on this countIn our considered opinion, the answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of thed legal position reflected in a catena of decisions of this court that contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences,e of the same cannot be held to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing the serious consequence including imposition of punishment. However, when the Courts are confronted with a question as to whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case of a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it may be, will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct to be too speculative based on assumption as the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 clearly postulates and emphasizes that the ingredient of wilful disobedience must be there before anyone can be hauled up for the charge of contempt of a civil nature14. In view of the aforesaid legal position, when the facts of the instant case are analyzed, it is clear that the learned single Judge had passed an interim order of stay in favour of the Insurance Company against implementation of the award passed in favour of the claimant and the said order was not complied with even upto the year 2003 and the reason forn of the order of stay was not communicated by the registry of the High Court for which the appellantDeputy Registrar (Judicial) has been held to be instrumental. The learned single Judge further has taken note of the letter dated 22.12.2005 by which the appellanti Dinesh Kumar Gupta, who was functioning as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on the said date had enquired about the case number and the date of the order which was required by the Registrar General (Vigilance) and the learned single Judge has initiated the contempt proceedings on the inference that it is the appellant who was instrumental due to which the interim order of stay passed by the learned single Judge way back on 22.3.2001 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2001 was not implemented. If the learned single Judge had called the appellant with files and perused the same, he himself would have been satisfied that on the relevant date, the appellant was not Deputy Registrar and it was not necessary to initiate contempt proceeding against him15. However, we cannot lose sight of the most relevant and important fact that when the interim order of stay was passed on 22.03.2001 by the learned single Judge, it was first of all the duty of the counsel for the petitioner United India Insurance Company Ltd. or the petitioner Insurance Company itself to obtain a certified copy of the interim order of stay and then communicate the same to the Presiding Judge of the MACT who was Shri S.K. Bansal. The petitioner herein Shri Gupta admittedly was not functioning in the High Court in any capacity in the year 2001 or thereafter until 2005 and hence he cannot be attributed with an ulterior motive to scuttle or ensure that the interim order of stay may not be implemented as admittedly for several years thereafter, at least upto the year 2003, when the MACT Judge Shri Bansal superannuated, the petitioner was not even posted in the High Court as he was posted in the High Court, Jaipur Bench as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for the first time in the year 2005. Hence, what transpired between the date of the order of interim stay passed in 2001 upto 2003 when the learned Judge, MACT Shri Bansal retired, no malafide or ulterior motive can at all be attributed to the appellant herein Shri Gupta so as to initiate a contempt proceeding against him. Therefore, even though the order was not complied, the reason or liability for itse cannot be fastened on the appellant hereinShri Gupta so as to justify initiation of contempt proceeding against him. Hence,e of the interim order of stay passed by the learned single Judge way back in the year 2001 which was passed much prior to 2005, when the appellant joined as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the High Court cannot be attributed to him. The appellant obviously could not have been expected to orally remember the particulars of each and every order passed by High Court on judicial side and sent to the registry, which was not implemented. Hence, if he wrote to the Registrar (Vigilance) seeking the case number of the pending matter as also the date of the stay order, the said letter cannot be treated to have been written with an intention to obstruct implementation of the interim order of stay which was passed four years earlier in the year 2001. Hence, it would be a wholly unfounded assumption, so as to infer that the appellant did so, to obviate or obstruct implementation of the stay order or forestall the same in any manner16. In our view, if the learned single Judge was of the view that the interim order of stay granted by the Court on 22.03.2001 in favour of the Insurance Company staying execution of the award of compensation in favour of the claimant was obstructed, the learned single Judge ought to have hauled up those officers in the registry for contempt who had been functioning in the registry at the relevant time and factually it was not correct for the learned Judge to assume that it was the petitioner who obstructed the administration of justice so as to justify initiation of contempt proceedings against an officer who joined five years later on the ground that he had sought the case number and the date of the order which was to be implemented in order to forestall the same when in fact it was already not implemented for a long number of years which was more than four years prior to the appellants posting in the High Court. As already stated, an officer in the registry who joined approximately five years later prior to the interim order of stay which was passed, he cannot legitimately be hauled up for contempt merely on unfounded assumption and speculation that it was he who was instrumental in obstructing the administration of justice by ensuring that the order of stay may not be implemented17. As already observed, the first and foremost onus to communicate an order of stay is on the counsel or the party in whose favour the order was passed by obtaining a certified copy of the order passed by the court and although the registry is also required to communicate the order to the concerned Court where it is required to be implemented, the same essentially is in the nature of a formal communication and if the same had not been communicated by the erstwhile officers of the registry for any reason whatsoever, including an assumed motive of its, a proceeding for contempt could have been initiated against an officer who was posted at the relevant time and had failed to communicate the order to the concerned Court which had to implement it. But, after an unusually long lapse of time, which in this case is more than four years, an officer like the appellant who subsequently joined the registry, cannot be attributed with an oblique motive of obstructing the cause of justice merely because he had sought the case number and date of the order of stay from the Registrar (Vigilance) in order to furnish a copy of the order which was required by the Registrar (Vigilance). In fact, when the Registrar (Vigilance) sought a copy of the interim order of stay, it was his duty to specify the case number and the date of the order as it cannot be expected that the copy of the order could be sent to the Registrar (Vigilance) without the case number or its date. In any view, it would be too far fetched to infer that the same was done to shield the learned Judge of the MACT Shri Bansal against whom vigilance enquiry was ordered, completely missing the relevant point that he had already superannuated two years earlier after which the learned Single Judge himself had ordered for closure of the vigilance enquiry against him18. Besides this, it would also not be correct to overlook or ignore an important statutory ingredient of contempt of a civil nature given out u/s 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 that the disobedience to the order alleging contempt has to satisfy the test that it is a wilful disobedience to the order. Bearing this important factor in mind, it is relevant to note that a proceeding for civil contempt would not lie if the order alleged to have been disobeyed itself provides scope for reasonable or rational interpretation of an order or circumstance which is the factual position in the instant matter. It would equally not be correct to infer that a party although acting due to misapprehension of the correct legal position and in good faith without any motive to defeat or defy the order of the Court, should be viewed as a serious ground so as to give rise to a contempt proceeding19. To reinforce the aforesaid legal position further, it would be relevant and appropriate to take into consideration the settled legal position as reflected in the judgment and order delivered in the matter of Ahmad Ali Vs. Supdt., District Jail, AIR 1987 SC 1491 : Supp. SCC 556 that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt and although, disobedience might have been established, absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct. Thus, accidental or unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to justify one for holding guilty of contempt. It is further relevant to bear in mind the settled law on the law of contempt that casual or accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience under the circumstances which negate any suggestion of contumacy, would amount to a contempt in theory only and does not render the contemnor liable to punishment and this was the view expressed also in cases reported in AIR 1954 Patna 513, State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari and AIR 1957 Patna 528, N. Bakshi Vs. O.K. Ghosh20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the learned single Judge inferred and assumed erroneously that the appellant had the intention to obstruct the administration of justice by being instrumental in ensuring that the interim order passed in 2001 may not be implemented oblivious of the fact that the appellant was posted in the registry of the High Court only four years later in 2005 and hencen of the interim order of stay cannot be attributed to the appellant to shield the Judge of the MACT, Jaipur who had retired way back in the year 2003 against whom the enquiry was ordered to be closed by the learned Single Judge himself. Thus, initiation of the contempt proceeding against the petitioner by the learned single Judge is based on a wholly wrong premise based on unsustainable and unfounded facts which cannot be treated sufficient material so as to initiate contempt proceeding in spite of absence of any degree of fault or misconduct or even unintentional disobedience to the order for the reasons assigned hereinbefore.