Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
This application under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts has been filed on the allegation of wilful disobedience and violation of the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Facts are that the applicant no. 1 is a partnership firm and applicant no. 2 is its partner. The firm was given contract for loading and unloading the food grains from Nebuwa-Naurangi Center and Deoria Center and another contract for loading and unloading food grains from Railway Wagons to the Railway Platform at Railhead Center. During subsistence of the contract, vide order dated 3.12.2011 passed by the opposite party, the contract was cancelled and the applicant firm was black listed. The order was challenged by filing writ petition no. 3281 of 2012. This Court in so far as cancellation of contract is concerned vide order dated 18.01.2012 refused to interfere in the matter. However, in so far as black listing is concerned, the Court having found that it was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing directed the authority to pass appropriate fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
The order passed by this Court was challenged by the applicant by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No (s) 9478 of 2012, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2012 stayed the order passed by the opposite party placing the name of the applicant in the black-list of the department.
It has been alleged that despite service of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the representation made by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 18.01.2012 passed by this Court has been rejected on 02.04.2012 by ante dating it to circumvent the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Before entering into the merits of the allegations that the order has been passed ante dated by the opposite party to by-pass and circumvent the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is necessary to consider the question whether this Court has power to entertain the petition for non compliance or wilful disobedience of any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
By virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, High Courts are Courts of record vested with the power to punish for contempt. The said Article reads as under :
"215. High Courts to be Courts of record.-Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself."
Similarly by virtue of Article 129 of the Constitution of India, Supreme Court is also a Court of record having all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
The power vested in the High Courts and Supreme Court to punish for contempt of themselves is not governed or limited by any rules of procedure excepting the principles of natural justice. The jurisdiction by Article 129 and 215 cannot be taken away or whittled down by any legislative enactment subordinate to the Constitution. The provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are in addition and not in derogation of Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted to define and limit the powers of courts in punishing for contempt and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto. Thus, the power of the superior court of record to punish for contempt flows from Article 215 and 129 of the Constitution and not from Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which was enacted by the legislature only to define and regulate procedure of the Courts in punishing for contempt.
Under the whole scheme of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there is no power vesting the High Courts of Supreme Court with the power to punish for contempt. It only defines and limit the powers of Courts in punishing for Contempt of Court and to regulate the procedure in relation thereto. Thus, the power flows from Article 215 and 129 of the Constitution.
The use of word "itself" in Article 215 and 219 of the Constitution makes the intention of the framers of the Constitution clear that power has been vested in the High Courts and Supreme Court, being Courts of record, to punish for its contempt.
Even Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which vests the High Court with the power to punish for contempt of subordinate courts also uses the word "itself". The said section reads as under:
"10. Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself."
Again the use of word "itself" in Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 makes legislative intent clear that every High Court is vested with the power to punish for contempt of Courts subordinate to it as it exercises in respect of contempt of itself.
A conjoint reading of Article 215 and 129 as well as Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly goes to show that as a court of record, the High Courts and Supreme Court have been vested with the power to punish for contempt of itself. Thus, it cannot be said that the High Court has power to entertain a contempt petition for non-compliance or wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Apex Court.
The view taken by me also finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Provincial Medical Services Association and others Vs. State of U. P. and others {2005 (23) LCD 232} wherein in paragraph 18 it has been observed as under :
"18. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the court of record is competent to initiate the contempt proceedings in respect of a matter seized by it and also in respect of the Contempt of the Court subordinate to it, but it is beyond imagination that the High Court can entertain the contempt petition for non-compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
In view of the above discussions and the law laid down by the Division Bench, this contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is not liable to be entertained by this Court and accordingly stands dismissed.
Order Date :- July 17,2012. (Justice Krishna Murari) Dcs