# Lalsar v. Rohit Kumar Maurya, Tehsildar, Balrampur

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1270
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-31
- **Case number:** Contempt No. 249 of 2020
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalsar-v-rohit-kumar-maurya-tehsildar-balrampur-45655
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - section
2(b) - civil contempt - an act of
contempt to be made out against the
contemnor - there has to be a deliberate
and willful disobedience and defiance of
2 All. Lalsar Vs. Rohit Kumar Maurya, Tehsildar, Balrampur
1271
the order passed by a Court of law - the
directions which are alleged to have been
violated should be unambiguous and
passing
of
an
order
in
purported
compliance of the order passed by a
Court of law would give rise to a fresh
cause of action. (Para-9)

The writ Court had directed the Court
concerned for expediting the proceedings of
impleadment
application
and
also
the
proceeding of case under Section 34 of the U.P
Land Revenue Act and to decide the same
within a specified time in case there is no legal
impediment - despite lapse of more than a year
and despite lapse of the time framed by the
writ Court neither the impleadment application
has been decided nor the said case has been
decided .(Para-2)

HELD:- No work having taken place invariably
on account of lawyer's strike it cannot be said
that there is any deliberate and willful
disobedience and defiance of the order passed
by the writ Court . (Para-3)

Contempt petition is dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

## Text

1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointment as a fait accompli to debar
the jurisdiction under Section 11 (6)
cannot be countenanced in law. ..."

33. We may immediately state
that the opinion expressed in the aforesaid
case is in consonance with the binding
authorities
we
have
referred
to
hereinbefore."

25.
In
the
aforesaid
circumstances, in our view a case is made
out to entertain the instant application
preferred by the Applicants. We, therefore,
accept the application, annul the effect of
the letter dated 30.07.2019 issued by the
respondent and of the appointment of the
arbitrator. In exercise of the power
conferred by section 11 (6) of the Act, we
appoint Dr. Justice A.K. Sikri, former
Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator
to decide all the disputes arising out of the
Agreement dated 22.05.2017, between the
parties,
subject
to
the
mandatory
declaration made under the amended
Section 12 of the Act with respect to
independence and impartiality and the
ability to devote sufficient time to complete
the arbitration within the period as per
Section 29A of the Act. A copy of the
Order be dispatched to Dr. Justice A. K.
Sikri at 144, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi -
110003 (Tel. No.:- 011 - 41802321). The
arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees
in terms of the Fourth Schedule to the Act.
The fees and other expenses shall be
shared by the parties equally.

36. Thus, in light of what has been held
above, this Court finds that the appointment of
Sri A.K. Reddy was against the provision of
law and thus it conferred no jurisdiction on
him and all proceedings held by him were
rendered null and void. Thus in light of the
above discussions the objections of the
respondent are rejected. Since there is no
dispute in between the parties regarding the
arbitration clause and that there are live
disputes between the parties, accordingly, this
Court in exercise of the powers conferred
under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 proposes the name of
Hon'ble Justice Anirudh Singh (Rtd. Judge) of
this Court who is residing at 1108 I Block,
Ganga Apartment, Sector 4, Gomti Nagar
Vistar, Lucknow, Pin Code No. 226010, Mob.
9454412315 to appoint as a sole arbitrator.

37. The learned counsel for the petitioner
shall provide a complete set of paper book
with the office to be forwarded to the proposed
arbitrator for seeking his consent in terms of
Section 12 (3) of the Act of 1996.

38. Accordingly, list this matter on
19.02.2020.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1270

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Contempt No. 249 of 2020

Lalsar ...Applicant
Versus
Rohit
Kumar
Maurya,
Tehsildar,
Balrampur ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Alok Kumar Tripathi, Anurakt Singh,
Deepak Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
-----

A Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - section
2(b) - civil contempt - an act of
contempt to be made out against the
contemnor - there has to be a deliberate
and willful disobedience and defiance of
2 All. Lalsar Vs. Rohit Kumar Maurya, Tehsildar, Balrampur
1271
the order passed by a Court of law - the
directions which are alleged to have been
violated should be unambiguous and
passing
of
an
order
in
purported
compliance of the order passed by a
Court of law would give rise to a fresh
cause of action. (Para-9)

The writ Court had directed the Court
concerned for expediting the proceedings of
impleadment
application
and
also
the
proceeding of case under Section 34 of the U.P
Land Revenue Act and to decide the same
within a specified time in case there is no legal
impediment - despite lapse of more than a year
and despite lapse of the time framed by the
writ Court neither the impleadment application
has been decided nor the said case has been
decided .(Para-2)

HELD:- No work having taken place invariably
on account of lawyer's strike it cannot be said
that there is any deliberate and willful
disobedience and defiance of the order passed
by the writ Court . (Para-3)

Contempt petition is dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

1. Debabrata Bandopadbyay and others Vs.
State of West Bengal and another , AIR 1969
SC 189

2. B.K. Kar Vs.The Hon'ble the Chief Justice
and his companion Justices of the Orissa High
Court and others , 1961 SC 1367

3. Niaz Mohammad and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others , 1994 (6) SCC 332

4. Mrityunjoy Das and another Vs. Sayed
Hasibur Rahaman and others , 2002 (3) SCC
739

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard.

2. The present contempt petition has
been filed alleging non compliance of the
judgment and order dated 18.12.2018
passed by writ Court in Writ Petition No.
36399 (MS) of 2018 Inre; Lalsar and Anr
Vs.
Tehsildar
(Judicial),
District
Balrampur and ors, a copy of which is
annexure 1 to the petition. By the said
order, the writ Court had directed the
Court
concerned
for
expediting
the
proceedings of impleadment application
dated 14.11.2017 and also the proceeding
of case under Section 34 of the U.P Land
Revenue Act and to decide the same
within a specified time in case there is no
legal impediment. It is contended that the
copy of the said order was served upon in
the Court of officer
concerned on
28.12.2018 and since then despite lapse of
more than a year and despite lapse of the
time framed by the writ Court neither the
impleadment application has been decided
nor the said case has been decided and,
consequently the officer concerned runs in
contempt of the order of writ Court dated
18.12.2018.

3. Having heard the learned counsel
for the applicant and having perused the
records including the order sheet of the
said case which has been filed as annexure
3 to the petition it comes out that
invariably
the
lawyers
have
been
abstaining from work. On a few occasion
the officer has also been busy in
administrative work apart from the fact
that the officer concerned has also been
transferred. Once this Court had directed
for deciding of the case within a period of
four months provided there is no legal
impediment yet taking into consideration
the aforesaid circumstances of no work
having taken place invariably on account
of lawyer's strike it cannot be said that
there is any deliberate and willful
disobedience and defiance of the order
passed by the writ Court dated 18.12.2018.
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Taking into consideration the
repeated strikes of lawyers, learned
counsel for the applicant was asked as to
whether he would like to implead the Bar
Association as a party inasmuch as it is the
Advocates who are standing as an
impediment in compliance of the judgment
and order 18.12.2018 passed by this Court
as the matter pending before the Tehsildar
concerned could not proceed on account of
repeated strikes. However, learned counsel
for the applicant outrightly refused to
implead the Bar Association as party.

4. In this view of the matter, the
Court may peruse the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court per which there
has
to
be
deliberate
and
wilful
disobedience by the contemnor in order to
to make out a case for contempt.

5. In this regard, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata
Bandopadbyay and others versus State
of West Bengal and another reported in
AIR 1969 SC 189 has held as under :-

"9. A question whether there is
contempt of court or not is a serious one.
The court is both the accuser as well as
the judge of the accusation. It behoves the
court to act with as great circumspection
as possible making all allowances for
errors of judgment and difficulties arising
from inveterate practices in courts and
tribunals. It is only when a clear case of
contumacious conduct not explainable
otherwise, arises that the contemner must
be punished. It must be realised that our
system of courts often results in delay of
one kind or another. The remedy for it is
reform and punishment departmentally.
Punishment under the law of contempt is
called for when the lapse is deliberate and
in disregard of one's duty and in defiance
of authority. To take action in an unclear
case is to make the law of contempt do
duty for other measures and is not to be
encouraged."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of B.K. Kar versus The Hon'ble the
Chief
Justice
and
his
companion
Justices of the Orissa High Court and
others reported in AIR 1961 SC 1367 has
held as under :-

"7. Before a subordinate court
can be found guilty of disobeying the order
of the superior court and thus to have
committed contempt of court, it is
necessary to show that the disobedience
was intentional. .................. There may
perhaps be a case where an order
disobeyed could be reasonably construed
in two ways and the subordinate court
construed it in one of those ways but in a
way different from that intended by the
superior court. Surely, it cannot be said
that disobedience of the order by the
subordinate court was contempt of the
superior court."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Niaz Mohammad and others
versus State of Haryana and others
reported in 1994 (6) SCC 332 has held as
under :-

"9 . Section 2(b) of the Contempt
of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') defines "Civil Contempt" to
mean
"willful
disobedience
to
any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or
other process of a court...". Where the
contempt consists in failure to comply with
or carry out an order of the court made in
favour of the party, it is a civil contempt.
The person or persons in whose favour
such order or direction has been made can
2 All. Lalsar Vs. Rohit Kumar Maurya, Tehsildar, Balrampur
1273
move the Court for initiating proceeding
for
contempt
against
the
alleged
contemner, with a view to enforce the right
flowing from the order or direction in
question. But such a proceeding is not like
an execution proceeding under CPC. The
party in whose favour an order has been
passed, is entitled to the benefit of such
order. The Court while considering the
issue as to whether the alleged contemner
should be punished for not having
complied and carried out the direction of
the Court, has to take into consideration
all facts and circumstances of a particular
case. That is why the framers of the Act
while defining civil contempt, have said
that it must be willful disobedience to any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or
other process of a court. Before a
contemner is punished for non compliance
of the direction of a court the Court must
not
only
be
satisfied
about
the
disobedience of any judgment, decree,
direction or writ but should also be
satisfied that such disobedience was
willful and intentional. The Civil Court
while executing a decree against the
judgment debtor is not concerned and
bothered whether the disobedience to any
judgment, or decree, was willful. Once a
decree has been passed it is the duty of the
court to execute the decree whatever may
be
consequences
thereof.
But
wile
examining the grievance of the person who
has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to
initiate the proceeding for contempt for
disobedience of its order, before any such
contemner is held guilty and punished, the
Court has to record a finding that such
disobedience was willful and intentional."

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mrityunjoy Das and
another
versus
Sayed
Hasibur
Rahaman and others reported in
2002 (3) SCC 739 has held as under
:-

"13.
Before
however,
proceeding
with
the
matter
any
further, be it noted that exercise of
powers under the Contempt of Courts
Act shall have to be rather cautious
and use of it rather sparingly after
addressing itself to the true effect of
the contemptuous conduct. The Court
must otherwise come to a conclusion
that
the
conduct
complained
of
tentamounts to obstruction of justice
which
if
allowed,
would
even
permeate in our society (vide Murray
& Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr.).
This
is
a
special
jurisdiction
conferred on to the law courts to
punish
an
offender
for
his
contemptuous conduct or obstruction
to the majesty of law. It is in this
context that the observations of the
this Court in Murray's case (supra)
in which one of us (Banerjee, J.) was
party needs to be noticed.

"The purpose of contempt
jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty
and dignity of the Courts of law since
the image of such a majesty in the
minds of the people cannot be led to
be
distorted.
The
respect
and
authority commanded by Courts of
Law are the greatest guarantee to an
ordinary
citizen
and
the
entire
democratic fabric of the society will
crumble down if the respect for the
judiciary is undermined. It is true
that the judiciary will be judged by
the people for what the judiciary
does,
but
in
the
event
of
any
indulgence which even can remotely
be termed to affect the majesty of law,
the
society
is
bound
to
lose
confidence and faith in the judiciary
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the law courts thus, would forfeit
the trust and confidence of the people
in general."

14. The other aspect of the
matter ought also to be noticed at this
juncture viz., the burden and standard of
proof. The common English phrase "he
who asserts must prove" has its due
application in the matter of proof of the
allegations said to be constituting the act
of contempt. As regards the 'standard of
proof', be it noted that a proceeding under
the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court
in terms of the provisions of the Contempt
of Court Act is quasi criminal, and as
such, the standard of proof required is that
of a criminal proceeding and the breach
shall have to be established beyond
reasonable doubt. The observations of
Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale 1969 3
All ER 1062 lend support to the aforesaid.
Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale stated:

"A contempt of court is an
offence of a criminal character. A man
may be sent to prison for it,. It must be
satisfactorily
proved.
To
use
the
timehonoured phrase, it must be proved
beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not
proved by showing that, when the man was
asked about it, he told lies. There must be
some further evidence to incriminate him.
Once some evidence is given, then his lies
can be thrown into the scale against him.
But there must be some other evidence....
Where there are two equally consistent
possibilities open to the Court, it is not
right to hold that the offence is proved
beyond reasonable doubt."

15. In this context, the observations
of the Calcutta High Court in Archana Guha v.
Ranjit Guha Neogi 1989 (II) CHN 252 in
which one of us was a party (Banerjee, J.)
seem to be rather apposite and we do lend
credence to the same and thus record our
concurrence therewith.

16. In The Aligarh Municipal Board
and Others v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and
Others MANU/SC/0075/1970 : 1970CriL
J1520 , this Court in no uncertain term stated
that in order to bring home a charge of
contempt of court for disobeying orders of
Courts, those who assert that the alleged
contemners had knowledge of the order must
prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt. This
Court went on to observe that in case of doubt,
the benefit ought to go to the person charged.

17. In a similar vein in V.G. Nigam
and others v. Kedar Nath Gupta and another
MANU/SC/0419/1992 : 1992CriL J3576 , this
Court stated that it would be rather hazardous
to impose sentence for contempt on the
authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction
on mere probabilities.

18. Having discussed the law on
the subject, let us thus at this juncture
analyse as to whether in fact, the contempt
alleged to have been committed by the
alleged contemners, can said to have been
established firmly without there being any
element of doubt involved in the matter
and that the Court would not be acting on
mere probabilities having however, due
regard to the nature of jurisdiction being
quasi criminal conferred on to the law
courts. Admittedly, this Court directed
maintenance of status quo with the
following words - "the members of the
petitioner-Sangha who were before the
High Court in the writ petition out of
which the present proceedings arise". And
it is on this score the applicant contended
categorically that the intent of the Court to
include all the members presenting the
Petition before this Court whereas for the
Respondent Mr. Ray contended that the
same is restricted to the members who
filed the writ petition before the High
Court which culminated in the initiation of
proceeding before this Court. The Counter
affidavit filed by the Respondents also
2 All. Suresh Tiwari Vs. T. Venkatesh, Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Lucknow & Anr.
1275
record the same. The issue thus arises as
to whether the order stands categorical to
lend credence to the answers of the
respondent or the same supports the
contention as raised by the applicants
herein - Incidentally, since the appeal is
pending in this Court for adjudication, and
since the matter under consideration have
no bearing on such adjudication so far as
the merits of the dispute are concerned, we
are not expressing any opinion in the
matter neither we are required to express
opinion
thereon,
excepting
however,
recording that probabilities of the situation
may also warrant a finding, in favour of
the interpretation of the applicant. The
doubt persists and as such in any event the
respondents being the alleged contemners
are entitled to have the benefit or
advantage of such a doubt having regard
to the nature of the proceeding as noticed
herein before more fully."

9. What comes out from a perusal of
the aforesaid judgements is that for an act of
contempt to be made out against the
contemnor, there has to be a deliberate and
wilfull disobedience and defiance of the
order passed by a Court of law, the
directions which are alleged to have been
violated should be unambiguous and passing
of an order in purported compliance of the
order passed by a Court of law would give
rise to a fresh cause of action.

10. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussions and the law in this regard, it
cannot be said that there is any deliberate or
wilful disobedience of the judgement and
order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the writ
Court.

11. Accordingly, the contempt petition
is dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1275

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Contempt No. 1064 of 2019

Suresh Tiwari ...Applicant
Versus
T.
Venkatesh,
Principal
Secretary,
Irrigation Department, Lucknow & Anr.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Apoorva Tewari, Paavan Awasthi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
-----

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -
section 2(b) - civil contempt - an act
of contempt to be made out against
the contemnor - there has to be a
deliberate and willful disobedience
and defiance of the order passed by a
Court of law - the directions which
are alleged to have been violated
should be unambiguous. (Para-15)

The writ Court directed the respondents to
consider the applicant for notional promotion
under service rules with all consequential
benefits
strictly
in
accordance
with
the
directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition.
(Para-2)

HELD:- Once admittedly the respondents, to
the best of their ability have considered the
case of the applicant and have passed an order
and the said order is not to the liking of the
applicant,
it
cannot
be
said
that
the
respondents run in contempt to the order
passed by the writ Court - There is no
deliberate or wilful disobedience of the
judgement and order passed by the writ Court.
(Para-9,16)