Not applying for modifying/revision of the court order even if the order was unsatisfactory leads to contempt: High Court of Bombay at Goa

 911 CP 10 2020.EDITED.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2020 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 18 OF 2013 MRS. LINA NAIK Major of age Resident of H.No.193 Simpal Sancoale Goa 1. MR.GIRISH PILLAI AND ANR. Sarpanch Village Panchayat of Sancoale Sancoale Mormugao Goa 403 710 2. SANDHYA SHIRODKAR The Secretary Village Panchayat of Sancoale Sancoale Mormugao Goa 403 710 Mr. S.D Lotlikar Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Keny Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Vaze Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: M. S. SONAK SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR JJ 22nd July 2021 1 of 22nd July 2021 911 CP 10 2020.EDITED.DOC ORAL ORDER: Per M.S. Sonak J Heard Mr. Lotlikar learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nikhil Vaze learned Advocate for the respondent No.2. This is the second time that the petitioner who is a nurse is required to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court because the respondents defaulted in compliance with our orders concerning payment of her salary To the petitioner s letter legal notice dated 18 11 2019 insisting upon compliance Deputy Sarpanch informed the petitioner that the panchayat in its meeting held on 18 12 2019 had resolved to apply for revision modification of the order made by this Court of which contempt had been alleged. Thereafter however the panchayat neither bothered to file any application for revision modification nor complied with the order. At least prima facie this amounts to contempt. The petitioner was thereafter required to file the present Contempt Petition pointing out that even the assurances given in the previous Contempt Petition have not been complied with. 2 of 22nd July 2021 911 CP 10 2020.EDITED.DOC Mr. Vaz learned Counsel for the respondents has placed on record a communication dated 19 07 2021 addressed to the petitioner. This communication states that an amount of 4 62 994 has been credited in the account of the petitioner towards pending monthly salary from November 2019 to December 2020 Mr. Vaze submits that from the year 2014 the local dispensary stopped functioning and further even the Doctor who was posted at this dispensary has retired. He submits that the panchayat has been pursuing the matter with the Government for absorption of the petitioner in the Local Health Centre. He submits that there was no work for the petitioner and therefore the panchayat felt that no salaries could be paid to her. According to us whatever the impression of the panchayat the panchayat was required to either seek modification or comply with the order. Now that the amounts have been paid and there is no contest we refrain from initiating any serious action under the Contempt of Court. However in the facts of this case we direct Mr. Girish Pillai Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Sancoale to pay costs of 10 000 to the petitioner within four weeks from today. These costs are required to be personally paid by Mr. Pillai without taxing the coffers of the 3 of 22nd July 2021 911 CP 10 2020.EDITED.DOC panchayat. This is because respondent No.1 as a Sarpanch should have realized that it is not proper to disobey the orders of the Court As noted earlier this is a case where the panchayat neither sought modification nor chose to comply with the orders made. It is made clear that if the amount of costs is not paid to the petitioner within four weeks from today this Court will have to reopen the entire issue and consider whether it is a case of aggravated contempt. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR J M. S. SONAK J 4 of 22nd July 2021 

Summary: In the case where the judgment debtor remains silent and chooses not to modify or go for revision against the impugned judgment and rather remains silent it would amount to contempt. A Division Bench comprising of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Smt. M. S. Jawalkar adjudicating the matter of Mrs. Lina Naik v. Mr.Girish Pillai And Anr. (CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2020) dealt with an issue whether to address the present case as a case of contempt or not. In the present case, the petitioner who is a nurse is required to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court because the respondents, defaulted in compliance with our orders concerning payment of her salary. To the petitioner’s letter/legal notice dated 18/11/2019 insisting upon compliance, Deputy Sarpanch informed the petitioner that the panchayat in its meeting held on 18/12/2019 had resolved to apply for revision/modification of the order made by this Court of which contempt had been alleged. The panchayat neither bothered to file any application for revision/modification nor complied with the order. At least prima facie, this amounts to contempt. After such incident, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition and pointed out that even the assurances given in the previous Contempt Petition have not complied. The Respondents submitted on 19/07/2021 they addressed the petitioner and communicated that an amount of 4,62,994/- ₹ has been credited in the account of the petitioner towards pending monthly salary from November 2019 to December 2020. It was submitted that from the year 2014 the local dispensary stopped functioning and further, even the Doctor who was posted at this dispensary has retired. He submits that the panchayat has been pursuing the matter with the Government for absorption of the petitioner in the Local Health Centre. It is submitted there was no work for the petitioner and therefore, the panchayat felt that no salaries could be paid to her. The court held that the panchayat, was required to either seek modification or comply with the order. Now that the amounts have been paid and there is no contest, we refrain from initiating any serious action under the Contempt of Court. However, in the facts of this case, we direct Mr. Girish Pillai, Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Sancoale to pay costs of 10,000/- to ₹ the petitioner within four weeks from today. These costs are required to be personally paid by Mr. Pillai without taxing the coffers of the panchayat. This is because respondent No.1, as a Sarpanch should have realized that it is not proper to disobey the orders of the Court. As noted earlier this is a case where the panchayat neither sought modification nor chose to comply with the orders made.