# Anand Dwivedi v. H.C. Awasthi, D.G.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 5 ILRA 221 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-08-31 - **Case number:** Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2632 of 2020 - **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-dwivedi-v-h-c-awasthi-d-g-p-ors-46166 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 10-Contempt petition being filed before Hon'ble High Court-for issuing contempt for wilful disobedience of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-not maintainable. (E-7) List of Cases cited:- ## Text 5 All. Anand Dwivedi Vs. H.C. Awasthi, D.G.P. & Ors. 221 Court, have not been able to purge themselves of the vice of denial of opportunity. The orders aforesaid would clearly be bad, in the opinion of this Court, on this score. An answer to the question whether orders being found to be bad on ground of denial of opportunity, should respondents be given the logical right to hear the petitioner afresh, confronting him with material on the basis of which he has been subjected to an adverse revision or diminution in his emoluments, would ordinarily be in the employer's favour. But, here is a case where the petitioner is a retired Class-III employee, who is exposed to the peril or a sufferance of a diminution in his emoluments, because the employers have committed a mistake in reading his service records, while granting him the first and the second selection grades. In the opinion of this Court, it would be most inequitable and illogical, at this distance of time, to subject the petitioner to the otherwise logical consequence of a callous mistake made by the employers years ago, when the petitioner was in their employ. This opinion, this Court expresses, on the supposition that if heard, the petitioner would still be subject to a downward revision of his emoluments. It is not known whether it would truly be so. But in any view of the matter, the equities that arise on the principles settled in Rafiq Masih, the employers ought not to be permitted to recover from the petitioner. 18. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 29.11.2014, 22.12.2014, 20.06.2015, 10.07.2015, 08.07.2015 and 27.08.2016, variously passed by the Regional Manger and the Assistant Regional Manager of the Corporation at Aligarh, are hereby quashed. The entire post-retiral benefits of the petitioner, without any diminution to his emoluments, shall be paid to him forthwith. 19. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. ---------- (2021)05ILR A221 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2632 of 2020 Anand Dwivedi ...Petitioner Versus H.C. Awasthi, D.G.P. & Ors.. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for the Opposite Parties: ----- The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 10-Contempt petition being filed before Hon'ble High Court-for issuing contempt for wilful disobedience of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-not maintainable. (E-7) List of Cases cited:- 1. Vitusah Oberoi & ors. Vs Court of Its Own Motion; (2017) 2 SCC 314 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Present contempt application has been filed with following prayer:- "It is therefore, Most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may 222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES graciously be pleased to summon the Opposite Party No.1, 2 & 3 Sri H.C. Awasthi Director General of Police State of U.P. Lucknow, Sri Ankit Mittal Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, District Chitrakoot & Sri Ravi Prakash, Station House Officer, Police Station, Bargadh, District Chitrakoot willfully flouted/ disobeyed the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008 (Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC) and committed the contempt of court." 3. For ready reference Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India are quoted as under:- "10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts.- 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. Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." "129. Supreme Court to be a court of record.-The Supreme 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. "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." 4. Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly provides that every High Court shall have power and authority in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself. 5. A reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vitusah Oberoi and Others vs. Court of Its Own Motion; (2017) 2 SCC 314, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is nothing in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or in Article 215 of the Constitution of India which can be said to empower the High Court to initiate proceedings either of suo-motu or otherwise for the contempt of a superior Court like the Supreme Court of India. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:- "10. There is, from a plain reading of the above, nothing in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or in Article 215 of the Constitution which can be said to empower the High Court to initiate proceedings suo-motu or otherwise for the contempt of a superior Court like the Supreme Court of India. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court under Article 219 and High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution are both declared to be Courts of Record. One of the recognised attributes of a court of record is the power to punish for its contempt and the contempt of courts subordinate to it. That is precisely why Articles 129 and 215, while declaring the Supreme Court and the High Courts as Courts of Record, recognise the power vested in them to punish for their own 5 All. Mohammad Najmuddin (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 223 contempt. The use of the expression "including" in the said provisions is explanatory in character. It signifies that the Supreme Court and the High Courts shall, as Courts of Records, exercise all such powers as are otherwise available to them including the power to punish for their own contempt. 12. The power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of Record under Article 215 does not, however, extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior court. Such a power has never been recognised as an attribute of a court of record nor has the same been specifically conferred upon the High Courts under Article 215. A priori if the power to punish under Article 215 is limited to the contempt of the High Court or courts subordinate to the High Court as appears to us to be the position, there was no way the High Court could justify invoking that power to punish for the contempt of a superior court. That is particularly so when the superior court's power to punish for its contempt has been in no uncertain terms recognised by Article 129 of the Constitution. The availability of the power under Article 129 and its plenitude is yet another reason why Article 215 could never have been intended to empower the High Courts to punish for the contempt of the Supreme Court. The logic is simple. If Supreme Court does not, despite the availability of the power vested in it, invoke the same to punish for its contempt, there is no question of a Court subordinate to the Supreme Court doing so. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the High Court appears to us to be without jurisdiction, hence, liable to be set aside." 6. This application filed under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the judgment and/ or direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clearly not maintainable before this Court. 7. Accordingly, present contempt application stands rejected. ---------- (2021)05ILR A223 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Revision No. 1800 of 2020 Mohammad Najmuddin (Minor) ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Sadful Islam Jafri, Sri Mohammad Belal, Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri (Senior Adv.) Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Juvenile Justice Act,2015 -Section 12Bail application of juvenile rejected-on ground that he was just below 18 years -17 years, 11 months and 7 daysrevision-section 12 makes bail mandatory-can be rejected only to serve best interest of the juvenile-if releasing on bail will have adverse effectpossibility of associated with known criminals or moral, physical or psychological danger to him-or his release would defeat ends of justice. Criminal revision allowed.(E-7)