Case: Baradakanta Mishra Vs. Bhimsen Dixit

1. The appellant is a member of the Superior Judicial Service of the State of Orissa, He was at 1972 B. Mishra v. B. Dixit (Dwivedi J.) [Prs. 1-7] S. C. 2467on time officiating as District Judge. At the relevant time he was functioning as Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa. The office of the Commissioner is created by the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act.2. In village Sanabagalpur there are two deities. The Additional assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments took action under S. 27 of the said act for appointing an interim trustee of the deities. The person incharge of the deities made an objection under S. 41 of the said Act that the Act did not apply as the deities were consecrated under a private endowment made by him. The Additional Assistant Commissioner rejected the objection by his order dated July 26, 1967. Without making any inquiry under S. 41, he held that prima facie there was a public endowment. He did not appoint the objector as a trustee of the deities. The objector filed a revision under S. 9 of the said Act before the appellant.3. During the period intervening between the rejection of the objection by the Addl. Assistant Commissioner and the filing of the revision by the objector, the identical issue was raised before the Orissa High Court in Bhramarbar Santra v. State of Orissa, ILR 1970 Cut 54 = (AIR 1970 Orissa 141). In that case the High Court held that the Asstt. Commissioner cannot appoint an interim trustee under S. 27 of the said Act until he has held an inquiry under S. 41 and has found that there was no hereditary trustee of the religious institution.4. At the hearing of the revision, the aforesaid decision was cited before the appellant by the applicant. After hearing the parties, the appellant made the followingis said on behalf of the petitioner that he has filed a petition under Section 41 of the Act. But no evidence is produced to that effect, thereby disclosing that their plea is humbug. The next argument is that the learned Assistant Commissioner should have first decided that the institution has not hereditary trustee. The Assistant Commissioner has impliedly done so.2. The next argument that without a final declaration as to the nature of the institution, no appointment under Section 27 can be made, does not seem to be correct. The decision in the High Court on Bantala case would not be applicable to this instance. Further against the order, we have moved the Supreme Court and as such, the matter can be safely deemed to be sub judice.3. In order to establish that the petitioner is the hereditary trustee, he has to file an application under S. 41 of the Act. No doubt the court can initiate such a proceeding, but we should not do it where the institution appears to be safely a public one, in this instance, a Siva temple.The applicant filed a writ petition in the High Court against this order. The Division Bench, on hearing the applicant, issued notice for contempt of the High Court to the appellant. The High Court took exception to the following sentence occurring at the end of paragraph 2 in his order: "Further, against the order we have moved the Supreme Court, and as such, the matter can be safely deemed to be sub judice.The appellant appeared before the High Court in response to the notice. According to him the apparently objectionable sentence in his order "was not at all the basis for (his) decision." He said that the revision was dismissed by him after distinguishing the case before him from the facts of Bharamabar Santra, ILR (1970) Cut 54 = (AIR 1970 Orissa 141). He further pleaded "that under the Constitution the decisions of the Supreme Court are law of the land. So, I bona fide, was of the opinion that when a matter is under appeal, or otherwise before the Supreme Court, the point of law, becomes sub judice and only a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter, would be binding on the Subordinate Court. It was also pleaded that the proceeding before him was a administrative proceeding and that the act of not following the decision of the High Court in such a proceeding "may not amount to contempt of court.The High Court did not accept his pleas in justification. It was held that the appellant "refused to follow the decision in Bharamarbar Santra, ILR (1970) Cut 54 = (AIR 1970 Orissa 141). The High Court further helddo not find any trace of bona fides of the contemner in the order dated 19-1-1970.........The contemner is a senior judicial officer who has already put in 23 years of service; having been recruited as a Munsif he has now risen to the rank of District Judge. We regret to find that though he has functioned as a judicial officer for about 23 years he has not been able to pick up the approach and attitude of a judicial officer and has actuated by the bias so often manifested in actions of the executive today while disposing of a judicial proceeding and when found fault with has come up with the stand that he was acting administratively.After examining the matter further, the High Courtconduct of the contemner far from being bona fide is clearly a mala fide one and he intentionally avoided to follow the decision of this Court by advancing grounds which were most inappropriate.On that view of the matter the High Court found him guilty of contempt of Court and admonished him in open Court and directed him to pay Rs. 300/- as costs of the proceedings.

Court's reasoning:
conduct of the appellant in following the previous decision of the High Court is calculated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of the inferior courts disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly any deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law.17. Our view that a deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the binding precedent of the High Court is contumacious does not unduly enlarge the domain of contempt. It would not stifle a bona fide act of distinguishing the binding precedent, even though it may turn out to be mistaken.