# Rajeev Pandey & Anr v. Prem Shankar

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 44
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-09
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 135 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeev-pandey-anr-v-prem-shankar-48790
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Ch.
VIII,
R.
5
-
Special
Appeal
-
Maintainability
-
Intra
Court
Appeal
against order passed in a contempt
proceeding holding that prima facie case
is made out and directing for appearing in
person - Held, jurisdiction to punish for
contempt has to be cautiously exercised
and cannot be a substitute for the
execution of an order of the Court -
Learned Single Judge while exercising the
contempt
jurisdiction
has
clearly
transgressed the powers conferred upon
him - Held, the Intra Court Appeal to be
maintainable. (Para 13, 15 and 20)
B.
Contempt
of
Court
Act,
1971
-
Contempt jurisdiction - Scope - Held,
under
the
exercise
of
contempt
jurisdiction, the High Court cannot go into
the merits of the order of which a breach
is complained of, or for that matter,
decide
upon
issues
which
are
left
undecided. Orders supplemental to what
has been decided by the order of which
breach is complained, cannot be issued in
exercise of contempt jurisdiction - Further
held,
in
exercise
of
the
contempt
jurisdiction, the order of the Court of
which a breach is complained of, has to be
read and interpreted as it is and not as it
should be and the Court cannot take a
different view in exercise of the contempt
jurisdiction on the merits of the case.
(Para 6 and 10)
C. Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Section
12 - Contempt jurisdiction - Scope of
interference
-
Writ
Court
directed
authority to dispose of representation by a
speaking
order
-
Order
passed
in
compliance thereof, how far can be
interfered with in contempt - Held,
correctness, legality or propriety of the
order
passed
in
compliance
of
the
direction cannot be gone into in contempt
proceedings. The correctness or otherwise
of the order passed in compliance of the
direction of the Writ Court, if required may
be tested in appropriate proceedings but
certainly not in contempt proceedings.
(Para 17)
Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointment inasmuch as it was neither
sanctioned by State Government nor the
appointment was made by the State
Government as is required under the U.P.
Development
Authorities
Regulations,
1985.

(iv) the services of the writ
petitioner/respondent were never regularized
and could not be equated to that of Sri Naresh
Dutt Tyagi who was appointed on 5.6.1979 and
his post was duly sanctioned by the State
Government.

6. It is thus submitted that the learned
Single Judge erred in law in allowing the writ
petition and in issuing directions for payment of
the retiral dues along with interest and as such
the intra Court Appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the record. We find
that the learned Single Judge has noted the fact
that the writ petitioner was appointed on
7.5.1988 pursuant to an advertisement issued by
the appellant itself and faced selection. The writ
petitioner was also absorbed on the post of Law
Officer in terms of order dated 15.3.2017
(Annexure-10 to the writ petition). The writ
petitioner/respondent has been drawing salary
from the State funds throughout the tenure of
his appointment which fact was not disputed by
the appellant. The learned Single Judge also
found that the writ petitioner qualified the
eligibility
criteria
prescribed
under
the
Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011 and had
rendered the qualifying service of more than 20
years and as such the decision to deny the writ
petitioner the retiral benefits could not be
sustained.

8. Recently the Apex court in the case of
the State of Gujarat and others vs. Talsibhai
Dhanjibhai Patel, Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No. 1109 of 2022 decided on 18.2.2022
reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 187 had the
occasion to consider a similar situation and
observed as under:-

"It is unfortunate that the State
continued to take the services of the respondent
as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to
contend that as the services rendered by the
respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to
pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be
permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong.
To take the Services continuously for 30 years
and thereafter to contend that an employee who
has rendered 30 years continues service shall
not be eligible for pension is nothing but
unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as
such ought not to have taken such a stand.

In the present case, the High Court
has not committed any error in directing the
State to pay pensionary benefits to the
respondent who has retired after rendering
more than 30 years service."

9. In view of the above, we do not find
any error in the judgement and order of the
learned Single Judge so as to warrant an
interference.

10. Accordingly, the Intra Court Appeal
stands dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 44
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 135 of 2022

Rajeev Pandey & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Prem Shankar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
8 All. Rajeev Pandey & Anr. Vs. Prem Shankar
45
Sri Pranab Kumar Ganguli

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Krishna Kant Mishra

A. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Ch.
VIII,
R.
5
-
Special
Appeal
-
Maintainability
-
Intra
Court
Appeal
against order passed in a contempt
proceeding holding that prima facie case
is made out and directing for appearing in
person - Held, jurisdiction to punish for
contempt has to be cautiously exercised
and cannot be a substitute for the
execution of an order of the Court -
Learned Single Judge while exercising the
contempt
jurisdiction
has
clearly
transgressed the powers conferred upon
him - Held, the Intra Court Appeal to be
maintainable. (Para 13, 15 and 20)
B.
Contempt
of
Court
Act,
1971
-
Contempt jurisdiction - Scope - Held,
under
the
exercise
of
contempt
jurisdiction, the High Court cannot go into
the merits of the order of which a breach
is complained of, or for that matter,
decide
upon
issues
which
are
left
undecided. Orders supplemental to what
has been decided by the order of which
breach is complained, cannot be issued in
exercise of contempt jurisdiction - Further
held,
in
exercise
of
the
contempt
jurisdiction, the order of the Court of
which a breach is complained of, has to be
read and interpreted as it is and not as it
should be and the Court cannot take a
different view in exercise of the contempt
jurisdiction on the merits of the case.
(Para 6 and 10)
C. Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Section
12 - Contempt jurisdiction - Scope of
interference
-
Writ
Court
directed
authority to dispose of representation by a
speaking
order
-
Order
passed
in
compliance thereof, how far can be
interfered with in contempt - Held,
correctness, legality or propriety of the
order
passed
in
compliance
of
the
direction cannot be gone into in contempt
proceedings. The correctness or otherwise
of the order passed in compliance of the
direction of the Writ Court, if required may
be tested in appropriate proceedings but
certainly not in contempt proceedings.
(Para 17)
Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Midnapore Peoples' Coop Bank Ltd. & ors. Vs
Chunilal Nanda & ors.; 2006 (5) SCC 399
2. Jhareswar Prasad Paul Vs Tarak Nath
Ganguly; 2002 (5) SCC 352
3. Director of Education, Uttaranchal & ors. Vs
Ved Prakash Joshi & ors.; 2005 (6) SCC 98
4. Civil Appeal No. 1816 of 2014; Sudhir
Vasudeva, Chairman & M.D. ONGC & others Vs
M. George Ravishekaran & ors. decided on
4.2.2014
5. Bihar Finance Service House Construction
Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs Gautam Goswami &
ors.; 2008 (5 ) SCC 339
6. U.O.I. Vs Subedar Devassy; (2006) 1 SCC 613
7. Niyaj Mohammad Vs St. of Har.; 1994 (6)
SCC 332
8. R.N. Dey Vs Bhagyabati Pramanik; 2002 (4)
SCC 400
9. Midnapore Peoples' Corp. Bank Ltd. & ors. Vs
Chunilal Nanda & ors.; (2006) 5 SCC 399
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. This Intra Court Appeal has been
filed questioning the legality, propriety and
correctness of the order dated 10.3.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in
Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5344 of
2021 (Prem Shanker vs. Rajeev Pandey,
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer/City
Magistrate, Bareilly and another) whereby
and whereunder exercising powers under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the
learned Single Judge, holding that prima
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facie a case for contempt is made out, has
directed the appellants herein to appear in
person before him to show cause as to why
the contempt proceedings may not be
initiated against them for alleged violation
of the order dated 30.7.2019 passed in
Writ-C No. 17534 of 2019.

2. It is vehemently contended on
behalf of the appellants that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is
legally not sustainable as it exceeds the
jurisdiction conferred under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. The Writ Court vide
its order dated 30.7.2019 had disposed of
the writ petition with the liberty to the
petitioner to file a fresh representation
ventilating all his grievances which he had
taken in the writ petition before the
appellant No.1, Special Land Acquisition
Officer/City Magistrate, Bareilly, who in
turn was directed to consider and decide the
same strictly in accordance with law by a
speaking and reasoned order within a
period of three months from the date of
filing the representation before him. The
appellant No.1 in compliance of the
direction of the Writ Court passed a
detailed / reasoned order dated 26.10.2020
deciding the claim of the writ petitioner.
The writ petitioner, instead of assailing the
validity and correctness of the order dated
26.10.2020 in appropriate proceedings,
chose to invoke the contempt jurisdiction
and the learned Single Judge travelling
beyond the order of the Writ Court of
which the breach was complained has
proceeded to pass the impugned order. The
learned Single Judge has traversed beyond
the order of the Writ Court and the
impugned order is totally uncalled for and
unwarranted. The contempt jurisdiction
ought not to have been exercised as there is
no deliberate and wilful disobedience of the
order of the Writ Court. It is accordingly
prayed that the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge is liable to be set
aside and the contempt petition itself be
dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the
decisions of this Court dated 17.2.2014
passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 77
of 2014; Decision dated 27.10.2015 passed
in Special Appeal Defective No. 707 of
2015; Decision dated 12.2.2020 passed in
Special Appeal No. 1225 of 2019; and
decision of the Apex Court reported in
2006 (5) SCC 399 (Midnapore Peoples'
Coop Bank Ltd. And others vs. Chunilal
Nanda and others).

3. A preliminary objection as regards
the maintainability of the Intra Court
Appeal has been raised by the learned
counsel
representing
the
applicant/respondent. He submits that the
order of the learned Single Judge merely
requires the personal presence of the
appellants to answer the show cause as to
why contempt proceedings may not be
initiated against them. Such an order being
purely interlocutory and not affecting the
rights of the appellants in terms of framing
a charge or punishing them for contempt,
an appeal under Chapter 8 Rule 5 of the
Rules of the Court may not lay. The appeal
is thus liable to be dismissed at the
threshold. Reliance has been placed on the
decision dated 13.7.2020 passed in Special
Appeal No. 262 of 2020. Reliance is also
placed on the decision of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court dated 20.5.1994
passed in Shri A.S. Chatha vs. Malook
Singh and others as also of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh : Amaravati dated
15.9.2021 passed in Pola Bhaskar vs.
Shaik Shain Bi and others.

4. We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the record.
The moot question for decision in this
8 All. Rajeev Pandey & Anr. Vs. Prem Shankar
47
Appeal is regarding the maintainability of
the Intra Court Appeal under Chapter 8
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court against an
order of Contempt Court issuing notice to
the opposite party to appear in person
before the Court to show cause as to why
contempt proceedings be not drawn against
the opposite party and as to whether a
Contempt Court can go behind the order of
the Writ Court so as to enlarge the scope of
the contempt jurisdiction.

5. At this juncture, for proper
appreciation of the issue involved, it would
be trite to reproduce the provision of
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Allahabad High Court Rules under which
the present appeal has been filed.

"5. Special appeal :- An appeal
shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not
being a judgment passed in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a
decree or order made by a Court subject to
the superintendence of the Court and not
being an order made in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of
its power of superintendence or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction 66[or in
the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by
Article
226
or Article
227
of
the
Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to
be made in the exercise or purported
exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in
the State List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b)
of the Government or any officer or
authority, made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act of one Judge."

6. In order to answer the above
question, it would be necessary to bear in
mind the basic parameters governing the
exercise of the contempt jurisdiction. The
High Court, when it exercises jurisdiction
to punish for a breach or disobedience of its
order, has to first and foremost have due
regard to the directions which were issued
and of which breach is complained of. It is
trite law that under the exercise of
contempt jurisdiction, the High Courts
cannot go into the merits of the order of
which a breach is complained of, or for that
matter, decide upon issues which are left
undecided. Orders supplemental to what
has been decided by the order of which
breach is complained, cannot be issued in
exercise of contempt jurisdiction. Rather
what needs to be considered is whether
there
has
been
compliance
of
the
direction(s) issued in the judgement or
order in its letter and spirit. In considering
this question, the Courts are expected to
examine the conduct of the party alleged to
be acting in contempt of the direction(s) of
the Court. It is to be borne in mind that the
contempt jurisdiction of the Courts serves a
sacrosanct purpose of ensuring that the
majesty and dignity of the Courts of law is
always upheld. To ensure that the utmost
respect which the Courts command is not
whittled down, care must be had that
judgements and orders of the Courts inspire
confidence and it can only be done when
these very judgements and orders are given
effect to. With that said, the principles
relating to civil contempt have been
enunciated in several decisions of the Apex
Court.

7. In Jhareswar Prasad Paul vs.
Tarak Nath Ganguly [2002 (5) SCC 352],
the principle was enunciated in the
following observation made in Para-11 as
under:
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"The court exercising contempt
jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into
questions which have not been dealt with
and decided in the judgment or order,
violation of which is alleged by the
applicant. The court has to consider the
direction issued in the judgment or order
and not to consider the question as to what
the judgment or order should have
contained. At the cost of repetition be it
stated here that the court exercising
contempt
jurisdiction
is
primarily
concerned
with
the
question
of
contumacious conduct of the party, which
alleged to have committed deliberate
default in complying with the directions in
the judgment or order. If the judgment or
order does not contain any specific
direction regarding a matter or if there is
any ambiguity in the directions issued
therein then it will be better to direct the
parties to approach the court which
disposed of the matter for clarification of
the order instead of the court exercising
contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the
power to decide the original proceeding in
a manner not dealt with by the court
passing the judgment or order."

8. The same principle was reiterated
in the judgement rendered in the case of
Director of Education, Uttaranchal and
others vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and others,
reported in 2005 (6) SCC 98 by the
following observations:

"The Court exercising contempt
jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power
to decide the original proceedings in a
manner not dealt with by the Court passing
the judgment or order. Right or wrong the
order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order
of the Court would render the party liable
for contempt. While dealing with an
application for contempt the Court cannot
traverse beyond the order, non-compliance
of which is alleged. In other words, it
cannot say what should not have been done
or what should have been done. It cannot
traverse beyond the order. It cannot test
correctness or otherwise of the order or
give additional direction or delete any
direction. That would be exercising review
jurisdiction
while
dealing
with
an
application for initiation of contempt
proceedings.
The
same
would
be
impermissible and indefensible."

9. Again in the case of Sudhir
Vasudeva, Chairman & M.D. ONGC &
others vs. M. George Ravishekaran and
others (Civil Appeal No. 1816 of 2014)
decided on 4.2.2014, the Apex Court held
as follows:-

"The power vested in the High
Courts as well as this Court to punish for
contempt is a special and rare power
available both under the Constitution as well
as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a
drastic power which, if misdirected, could
even curb the liberty of the individual
charged with commission of contempt. The
very nature of the power casts a sacred duty
in the Courts to exercise the same with the
greatest of care and caution. This is also
necessary
as,
more
often
than
not,
adjudication of a contempt plea involves a
process of self determination of the sweep,
meaning and effect of the order in respect of
which disobedience is alleged. Courts must
not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners
of the order which is alleged to have been
flouted or enter into questions that have not
been dealt with or decided in the judgment or
the order violation of which is alleged. Only
such directions which are explicit in a
judgment or order or are plainly self evident
ought to betaken into account for the purpose
of consideration as to whether there has been
8 All. Rajeev Pandey & Anr. Vs. Prem Shankar
49
any disobedience or willful violation of the
same. Decided issues cannot be reopened;
nor the plea of equities can be considered.
Courts
must
also
ensure
that
while
considering a contempt plea the power
available to the Court in other corrective
jurisdictions like review or appeal is not
trenched upon. No order or direction
supplemental to what has been already
expressed should be issued by the Court
while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of
the contempt law; such an exercise is more
appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in
the Court, as noticed above. The above
principles would appear to be the cumulative
outcome of the precedents cited at the bar,
namely,
Jhareswar
Prasad
Paul
and
Another vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others
[(2002) 5 SCC 352], V.M.Manohar Prasad
vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another [(2004) 13
SCC 610], Bihar Finance Service House
Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. vs.
Gautam Goswami and Others [(2008) 5
SCC 339] and Union of India and Others
vs. Subedar Devassy PV [(2006) 1 SCC 613].
"

10. Yet again the Apex Court while
reiterating the principle that in exercise of
the contempt jurisdiction, the order of the
Court of which a breach is complained of,
has to be read and interpreted as it is and
not as it should be and the Court cannot
take a different view in exercise of the
contempt jurisdiction on the merits of the
case and cannot make either an addition or
deletion from the original order of the
Court, made the following observation in
the case of Bihar Finance Service House
Construction Cooperative Society Ltd.
vs.
Gautam
Goswami
and
others,
reported in 2008 (5 ) SCC 339 as under:-

"30.
Parameters
of
the
jurisdiction of this Court under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 are well
settled.

31. While dealing with such an
application,
the
court
is
concerned
primarily with:

(i) whether the order passed by it
has attained finality or not;

(ii) Whether the same is complied
with or not.

32. While exercising the said
jurisdiction this Court does not intend to
reopen the issue which could have been
raised in the original proceeding nor shall
it embark upon other questions including
the plea of equities which could fall for
consideration
only
in
the
original
proceedings. The court is not concerned
with as to whether the original order was
right or wrong. The court must not take a
different view or traverse beyond the same.
It cannot ordinarily give an additional
direction or delete a direction issued. In
short, it will not do anything which would
amount
to
exercise
of
its
review
jurisdiction."

11. Further, in the judgement in the
case of Union of India vs. Subedar
Devassy, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 613,
the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"While
dealing
with
an
application for contempt, the court is really
concerned with the question whether the
earlier decision which has received its
finality had been complied with or not. It
would not be permissible for a court to
examine the correctness of the earlier
decision whicgh had not been assailed and
to take a view different from what was
taken in the earlier decision. A similar view
was taken in K.G. Derasari v. Union of
India, [2001] 10 SCC 496. The court
exercising
contempt
jurisdiction
is
primarily concerned with the question of
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 party concerned to approach the
higher court if according to him the same is
not legally tenable. Such a question has
necessarily to be agitated before the higher
court. The court exercising contempt
jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power
to decide the original proceedings in a
manner not dealt with by the court passing
the judgment or order. Though strong
reliance was placed by learned counsel for
the appellants on a three-Judge Bench
decision in Niaz Mohd. v. State of Haryana,
[1994] 6 SCC 332 we find that the same
has no application to the facts of the
present case. In that case the question
arose about the impossibility to obey the
order. If that was the stand of the
appellants, the least it could have done was
to assail correctness of the judgment before
the higher court.

The
above
position
was
highlighted in Prithawi Nath Ram v. State
of Jharkhand and Ors., [2004] 7 SCC 261.

On the question of impossibility
to carry out the direction, the views
expressed in T.R. Dhananjaya v. J.
Vasudevan, [1995] 5 SCC 619 need to be
noted. It was held that when the claim inter
se had been adjudicated and had attained
finality, it is not open to the respondent to
go behind the orders and truncate the effect
thereof by hovering over the rules to get
around the result, to legitimise legal alibi to
circumvent the order passed by a court.

In Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul
Majid Rather, [1994] 4 SCC 34, it was held
that if a party is aggrieved by the order, he
should take prompt steps to invoke
appellate proceedings and cannot ignore
the order and plead about the difficulties of
implementation at the time contempt
proceedings are initiated.

If
any
party
concerned
is
aggrieved by the order which in its opinion
is
wrong
or
against
rules
or
its
implementation is neither practicable nor
feasible, it should always either approach
the court that passed the order or invoke
jurisdiction
of
the
appellate
court.
Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot
be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or
wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting
an order of the court would render the
party liable for contempt. While dealing
with an application for contempt the court
cannot traverse beyond the order, noncompliance with which is alleged. In other
words, it cannot say what should not have
been done or what should have been done.
It cannot traverse beyond the order. It
cannot test correctness or otherwise of the
order or give additional direction or delete
any direction. That would be exercising
review jurisdiction while dealing with an
application for initiation of contempt
proceedings.
The
same
would
be
impermissible and indefensible."

12.

The
Apex
Court
while
emphasising the principle that before a
Court punishes a contemner for noncompliance of a direction, the Court must
be satisfied that disobedience of the
judgement, decree, direction or writ was
wilful or intentional in the case of Niyaj
Mohammad vs. State of Haryana [1994
(6) SCC 332] held as under:-

"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 wilful
and intentional. The Civil Court while
8 All. Rajeev Pandey & Anr. Vs. Prem Shankar
51
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. If
from the circumstances of a particular
case, brought to the notice of the court, the
Court is satisfied that although there has
been a disobedience but such disobedience
is
the
result
of
some
compelling
circumstances which it was not possible for
the contemner to comply with the order, the
Court
may
not
punish
the
alleged
contemner."

13. Then again while emphasising the
principle that the jurisdiction to punish for
contempt has to be cautiously exercised
and cannot be a substitute for the execution
of an order of the Court, the Apex Court in
the case of R.N. Dey vs. Bhagyabati
Pramanik [2002 (4) SCC 400] made the
following observation:-

"......But, at the same time, it is to
be noticed that under the coercion of
contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be
directed to pay the compensation amount
which they are disputing by asserting that
claimants were not the owners of the
property in question and that decree was
obtained by suppressing the material fact
and by fraud. Even presuming that
claimants are entitled to recover the
amount of compensation as awarded by the
trial court as no stay order is granted by
the High Court, at the most they are
entitled to recover the same by executing
the said award wherein the State can or
may contend that the award is nullity. In
such a situation, as there was no willful or
deliberate disobedience of the order, the
initiation of contempt proceedings was
wholly unjustified."

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Midnapore Peoples' Coop Bank Ltd.
And others vs. Chunilal Nanda and
others [(2006) 5 SCC 399], while
considering a case where the High Court, in
a contempt proceeding, renders a decision
on merits of a dispute between the parties,
either by an interlocutory order or final
judgement, the question whether the same
would be appealable under Section 19 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and if
not what would be the remedy of the
person aggrieved, held that any direction
issued or decision made by the High Court
in contempt proceedings on the merits of a
dispute between the parties, unless the
same is incidental to or inextricably
connected with the order punishing for
contempt, would not be in the exercise of
"jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and
therefore, would not be appealable under
Section 19 of the Act, 1971. Such an order,
passed by the Contempt Court, was held,
amenable to a challenge in an intra Court
Appeal under the relevant rules of the High
Court. The position with regard to filing of
appeals
against
orders
in
contempt
proceedings were summarized thus:-

"11. The position emerging from
these decisions, in regard to appeals
against orders in contempt proceedings
may be summarized thus :

I. An appeal under section 19 is
maintainable only against an order or
decision of the High Court passed in
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt.

II. Neither an order declining to
initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an
order initiating proceedings for contempt
nor an order dropping the proceedings for
contempt nor an order acquitting or
exonerating the contemnor, is appealable
under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special
circumstances, they may be open to
challenge under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

III. In a proceeding for contempt,
the High Court can decide whether any
contempt of court has been committed, and
if so, what should be the punishment and
matters incidental thereto. In such a
proceeding, it is not appropriate to
adjudicate or decide any issue relating to
the merits of the dispute between the
parties.

IV. Any direction issued or
decision made by the High Court on the
merits of a dispute between the parties, will
not be in the exercise of ''jurisdiction to
punish for contempt' and therefore, not
appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The
only exception is where such direction or
decision is incidental to or inextricably
connected with the order punishing for
contempt, in which event the appeal under
section 19 of the Act, can also encompass
the incidental or inextricably connected
directions.

V.
If
the
High
Court,
for
whatsoever reason, decides an issue or
makes any direction, relating to the merits
of the dispute between the parties, in a
contempt
proceedings,
the
aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an
order is open to challenge in an intra-court
appeal (if the order was of a learned Single
Judge and there is a provision for an intracourt appeal), or by seeking special leave
to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India (in other cases)."

15. Now applying the principles as
culled out from the various decisions
referred to above to the case at hand, we
find that the learned Single Judge while
exercising the contempt jurisdiction has
clearly transgressed the powers conferred
upon him. The operative portion of the
order of the Writ Court which is alleged to
have been breached reads as under:-

"In view of the above, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, we dispose of this writ petition with
liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh
comprehensive representation ventilating
all his grievances which he has taken by
him in this writ petition before the
respondent no. 2, Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bareilly within a period of two
weeks from today along with certified copy
of this order and in case any such
representation is filed by the petitioner
before the respondent no. 2 within the time
indicated hereinabove, he shall consider
and decide the same strictly in accordance
with law by a speaking and reasoned order
as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of three months from the
date of filing of such representation by the
petitioner before him. "

16. A perusal of the above reveals
that the Writ Court required the writ
petitioner/applicant/respondent to prefer
a
comprehensive
representation
ventilating his grievances before the
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Bareilly, who in turn was directed to
decide the same strictly in accordance
with law by a speaking and reasoned
order expeditiously within three months.
The above order of the Writ Court does
8 All. Rajeev Pandey & Anr. Vs. Prem Shankar
53
not bear reference to any Government
Order dated 19.3.2015 or to the fact that
the compensation was required to be
determined
in
terms
of
the
said
Government Order. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, in compliance of the
order of the Writ Court, vide order dated
26.10.2020
has
decided
the
representation of the writ petitioner
holding him entitled to compensation for
the land utilised and the onus to compute
and pay the compensation has been fixed
upon the PWD Department. The matter
thereafter was referred to a Committee
headed
by
the
Additional
District
Magistrate, Bareilly which was required
to determine the rate on which the
amount of compensation was to be
determined. The Committee vide its
decision dated 17.1.2022 determined the
rate of Rs. 704.54 per sq. meters for the
land utilised. The learned Single Judge
while exercising the powers of a
Contempt Court taking note that the
compensation has been determined by
the Committee by its order dated
17.1.2022 has recorded finding that
prima facie a case for contempt is made
out as the order of the Committee is in
the teeth of the order of the Writ Court.

17. In our view, the scope of contempt
jurisdiction is to see whether the order of the
Writ Court has been complied with in
substance or deliberately flouted leading to an
inference of a "wilful, deliberate and
contumacious" violation of the order of
which non compliance is alleged. In the case
at hand where the direction is only to dispose
of the representation by a speaking order, the
correctness, legality or propriety of the order
passed in compliance of the direction cannot
be gone into in contempt proceedings. The
correctness or otherwise of the order passed
in compliance of the direction of the Writ
Court, if required may be tested in
appropriate proceedings but certainly not in
contempt proceedings.

18. Once the direction as contained in
the judgement and order dated 30.7.2019
passed in Writ-C No. 17534 of 2019 (Prem
Shankar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) had
been complied with culminating into an order
dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Special Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Bareilly
and
determination of compensation by the
Committee by an order dated 17.1.2022,
passing of the order by the learned Single
Judge dated 10.3.2022 giving rise to the
instant appeal could possibly not have risen
in contempt jurisdiction. The order dated
10.3.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
results in expanding the scope of contempt
jurisdiction by going behind the direction
contained in the order of the Writ Court dated
30.7.2019 contempt, of which, is alleged. If
the writ petitioner/applicant/respondent was
not satisfied, his remedy lay elsewhere but
certainly not by invoking the contempt
jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971.

19. The case laws relied upon by the
counsel for the appellants propound the
above position of the law. The case laws
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
applicant (writ petitioner)/respondent deal
with the maintainability of an appeal under
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, and the instant Special Appeal has been
preferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 and thus,
they are not applicable to the case at hand. As
regards the decision dated 13.7.2020 passed
in Special Appeal No. 262 of 2020 the same
in
our
opinion
was
passed
under
circumstances peculiar to that case and the
learned Bench opined that the order
impugned was merely of a procedural nature
and did not in any manner touch the merits of
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the controversy or dispute between the parties
so as to be deemed to have been issued under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This
is not the position in the case at hand.

20. In view of the above, while holding the
Intra Court Appeal to be maintainable, we set
aside the order dated 10.3.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Contempt Application
(Civil) No. 5344 of 2021 (Prem Shankar vs.
Rajeev Pandey, Special Land Acquisition
Officer/City Magistrate, Bareilly and another) and
dismissing
the
Contempt
Application.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.3.2022
is set aside and the Contempt Application (Civil)
No. 5344 of 2021 is dismissed.

21. The Intra Court appeal is allowed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 54
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal No. 229 of 2021 (O & M)
with other connected cases

Gaurav Vats ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Mr. Anoop Trivedi (Senior Advocate), Mr.
Vibhu Rai, Mr. Hari Om, Mr. Akash Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Manish Goyal, (A.A.G.), Ms. Akansha
Sharma (Standing Counsel), Sri Ankit Gaur
(State Law Officer)

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 & 15 - Appointment given to
the women candidates on account of
miscalculating
the
horizontal
reservation - No allegations of fraud or
misrepresentation against the women
candidates - Error of recruiting agency
- Effect on the validity of appointment
- Held, it is the undisputed case that
the selected women candidates were
not responsible for the error in wrong
calculation of horizontal reservation.
They were not responsible for the
irregularities so committed. They had
undergone the training and had worked
for some time - Division Bench found
no illegality in adjusting the appointed
women candidates against the available
vacancies - Anmol Kumar Tiwari's case
followed. (Para 8 and 11)
Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Vikas Pratap Singh & ors. Vs St. of
Chhattisgarh & ors.; (2013) 14 SCC 494
2. Anmol Kumar Tiwari & ors. Vs St. of
Jharkhand & ors.; (2021) 5 SCC 424
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

1. This order will dispose of a bunch
of 17 Special Appeals bearing Special
Appeal Nos. 229 and 320 of 2021, Special
Appeal Defective Nos. 428, 496, 497, 498,
499, 502, 503, 505, 509, 533, 535, 579,
580, 582 and 926 of 2021.

2. Vide common judgment passed by
learned Single Judge dated March 24,
2021, a bunch of 189 writ petitions led by
Writ-A No. 43064 of 2014, titled as
Gaurav Vats Vs. State of U.P. and others,
was decided. The appeals have been filed
only in 17 cases.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the
process for recruitment of 35,000 Police
Constables was initiated in the year 2009.
The result was declared on May 17, 2010.
There
was
certain
issue
regarding