Heard Sri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel for the applicants in support of the present contempt petition.
The present petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for the alleged breach of the judgment delivered by this Court in Rakesh Kumar and others versus Collector, Gonda and others 2005 (1) AWC 630 (LB), decided on 5th July, 2004 wherein, admittedly the present petitioner was not a party in any manner.
The background facts may be noticed in brief:
The applicant no. 1 took loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from State Bank of India for purchasing tractor regarding agricultural work. He could not repay the loan amount and it appears that the Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the applicant. It has been stated that the applicants have filed some objections on 28th May, 2012 before Collector, Allahabad including judgments of High Court and Supreme Court and a Government Order dated 31th May, 1979. Subsequently, the mortgaged property was attached on 18th June, 2012. 5th July, 2012 is the date fixed for auction sell.
Grievance of the applicants is that the opposite parties have attached the property of the applicants without following the directions as contained in the judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra). He has placed reliance on certain paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment and submits that the attachment order has been passed without following the directions as contained in the said judgment. Further submission is that in view of the decision in the case of Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Shri Bhimsen Dixit, AIR 1972 SC 2466; and Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India and others, (2012) 1 SCC 273, the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act be initiated against opposite parties as opposite parties have acted contrary to law; the law as laid down in the said decisions.
I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the applicants and find it difficult to agree with him for the reasons more than one. Admittedly, the applicants were not party in writ petition of Rakesh Kumar (supra). In the said judgment, the Court has laid down certain guidelines in the opinion of the Court to be observed while making the attachment of property to be auction sold. Assuming for a moment that the attachment has been made in violation of law laid down by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra), it would not lead us to the conclusion that the authority concerned has committed any contempt of court. At the most, the attachment would be illegal if it is made contrary to procedure prescribed by law. Passing of a wrong order does not amount contempt of Court.
The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are besides the point. In the case of Shri Baradakanta Mishra (supra) a lis was decided between the parties which was refused to be followed by the authority concerned. Observations made in para-11 of the report should be read in the context of the facts of that case and the facts are quite distinguishable. So far as, the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Director of Education, Uttaranchal & others versus Ved Prakash Joshi and others, JT 2005 (6) SC 276 is concerned, I do not find its any applicability. The observations made in para-7 has been relied by the learned counsel for the applicants. Therein, it has been laid down that the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the concerned party to approach the higher court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. The said observations have nothing to do with the facts of the present case.
The remedy of the applicants is elsewhere and they cannot invoke the contempt jurisdiction by filing the contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in other similar cases, this Court has issued notices and placed before me copy of the order passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1855 of 2012, Bhondal vs. Anil Kumar, Collector and others dated 10.05.2012. From the order, it does not appear that on what ground, notices were issued. In any view of the matter, the said order is an ex parte order and there is no ratio. There is no discussion.
In view of the above, I do not find it a fit case to initiate any proceeding under Contempt of Courts Act. However, it shall be open to the applicants to challenge the attachment order before appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding, if they so advised.
The petition is rejected.
(Prakash Krishna,J) Order Date :- 3.7.2012 MK/