# Santosh Kumar Maurya v. Sri Alok Kumar

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1348
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-22
- **Case number:** Contempt No. 1153 of 2018
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-maurya-v-sri-alok-kumar-45189
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section
2(b) - challenge to-wilful disobedience of
opposite
party
in
deciding
the
representation of the petitioner-chairman
decided the representation by a reasoned
and speaking order-hence, rejecting the
petitioner representation stating that he
was not an employee of Nagar Nigam at
the time of transfer from Firoz Gandhi
Unchahar Thermal Power Project. (Para 4)

It is ordinarily true that in contempt jurisdiction
a Judge cannot exercise writ jurisdiction. In
contempt jurisdiction either the Judge can
punish
for
contempt
or
discharge
the
contemnor.
However,
in
exceptional
circumstances, the court can issue directives in
contempt jurisdiction in order to secure the
ends of justice. (Para 2)

B. Doctrine of Stare decisis - In contempt
jurisdiction, a Judge cannot exercise a
writ jurisdiction and therefore, prayer of
the
petitioner
for
issuing
certain
directions is refused. Even otherwise,
under Article 141 of the Constitution, the
law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court being the law of the land is binding
on
all
Courts
and
Tribunals
and
authorities in India including this Court.
(Par 10)

Contempt Petition dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. M/s D.H.B. Narendra Construction (J.V.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1349

7. This Court therefore finds no
illegality in the impugned order to warrant
interference. The appeal lacks merit and is
dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1348

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Contempt No. 1153 of 2018

Santosh Kumar Maurya ...Applicant
Versus
Sri Alok Kumar ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ramesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Puneet Chandra

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section
2(b) - challenge to-wilful disobedience of
opposite
party
in
deciding
the
representation of the petitioner-chairman
decided the representation by a reasoned
and speaking order-hence, rejecting the
petitioner representation stating that he
was not an employee of Nagar Nigam at
the time of transfer from Firoz Gandhi
Unchahar Thermal Power Project. (Para 4)

It is ordinarily true that in contempt jurisdiction
a Judge cannot exercise writ jurisdiction. In
contempt jurisdiction either the Judge can
punish
for
contempt
or
discharge
the
contemnor.
However,
in
exceptional
circumstances, the court can issue directives in
contempt jurisdiction in order to secure the
ends of justice. (Para 2)

B. Doctrine of Stare decisis - In contempt
jurisdiction, a Judge cannot exercise a
writ jurisdiction and therefore, prayer of
the
petitioner
for
issuing
certain
directions is refused. Even otherwise,
under Article 141 of the Constitution, the
law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court being the law of the land is binding
on
all
Courts
and
Tribunals
and
authorities in India including this Court.
(Par 10)

Contempt Petition dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

1. U.P. Nursing Home Association & Ors. Vs.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava & Ors. (2004) (2)
UPLBEC 1404 para 7

2. Abida Begam Vs. RCEO (Supra)

3. Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited & Ors. (2014)

3 SCC 373 para 19

4. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Depinder Singh Dhesi
& Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 280 paras 16 and 17

5. J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & Ors.
MANU/SC/0037/1997: (1996) 6 SCC 291

6. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Goel & Ors. Vs. St. of
U.P. & Anr. decided on 27.4.2004 in Special
Appeal No.320 of 2004

7. Narendra Singh Vs. St. of Punjab reported in
AIR 2014 SC 1839 (Supp.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Manish Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted
by Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel
appearing for contemnor-opposite party.

2. Contention of learned counsel for
petitioner is that writ court vide order
dated 08.05.2017, permitted the petitioner
to make detailed representation to opposite
party
no.1
and
in
case
such
a
representation is made by the petitioner,
1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same was to be decided by the
Chairman, opposite party no.1 with a
reasoned and speaking order within a
period of three months from the date a
certified copy of the order is placed before
him. It has further been submitted by
learned counsel for petitioner that opposite
party has full knowledge of the judgment
and order passed by the writ court but has
not decided the representation of the
petitioner. Next submission of learned
counsel for petitioner is that the land of the
petitioner and various other persons were
taken by opposite party and 166 candidates
have been granted appointment by the
opposite party. However, arbitrarily, the
opposite
party
has
not
provided
appointment to the petitioner although he
was bound to appoint him. In support of
his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on the judgment of
this Court reported in (2004) (2) UPLBEC
1404 U.P. Nursing Home Association
and others vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
and others wherein para 7, the court has
held as under:

"No doubt it is ordinarily true
that in contempt jurisdiction a Judge
cannot exercise writ jurisdiction. In
contempt jurisdiction either the Judge can
punish for contempt or discharge the
contemnor.
However,
in
exceptional
circumstances as we have held in Dr.
Ravindra Kumar Goel's case (supra), the
court can issue directives in contempt
jurisdiction in order to secure the ends of
justice. The view was taken by the Division
Bench decision of this Court in Abida
Begam vs. RCEO (Supra), and we
reiterated it in Dr. Ravindra Kumar
Goel's case (Supra)."

3. Thus, it is submitted that in view
of the law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court, directions can be
issued in the contempt jurisdiction to
secure the ends of justice to the petitioner
and opposite party may be directed to
provide appointment to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Shri Manish Kumar,
learned counsel for contemnor submitted
that in compliance of the order passed by
the writ court, the representation of the
petitioner has been considered and decided
by a reasoned and speaking order dated
7.9.2019 and reasons have been stated in
detail
and
while
rejecting
the
representation of the petitioner, finding has
been given that petitioner was not an
employee of Nagar Nigam at the time of
transfer from Firoz Gandhi Unchahar
Thermal Power Project.

5. Learned counsel further submitted
that it has been categorically mentioned in
the rejection order that petitioner had
continued his job since 31.7.1987 and had
been confirmed as peon w.e.f. 01.02.1992
as such the petitioner was regular
employee of DAV Public School since
01.02.1992 and has accepted the job of
peon in DAV Public School and is
working as regular employee since 1992
therefore, nothing more is required to be
done by the authority. In support, he has
relied upon the judgment reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 373 Sudhir Vasudeva,
Chairman and Managing Director, Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
and others. The relevant para no.19 is
reproduced as under :-

"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,
1 All. Santosh Kumar Maurya Vs. Sri Alok Kumar
1351
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. The 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 be taken into account
for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or
willful violation of the same. Decided issues
cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of
equities be considered. The 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."

6. It is thus submitted by learned
counsel for the contemnor that direction of
the court was only to decide the
representation of the petitioner by a
reasoned and speaking order, the same has
been done, the contemnor has passed a
well reasoned order.

7. He submitted that in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid case Sudhir
Vasudeva, (Supra) this Court being a
contempt court cannot travel beyond its
jurisdiction. He has also relied on
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of (2019) 8 SCC 280 Ashok
Kumar and others vs. Depinder Singh
Dhesi and others. Relevant paras 16 and
17 are reproduced as hereunder::

"16. In the present case, serious
objection has been raised on behalf of
Department that the concerned candidates
had enrolled themselves in courses leading
to
Degrees
in
Engineering
through
Distance Education Mode without express
permission of the Department and/or the
Department did not recognise the Degrees
in Engineering awarded through Distance
Education Mode or that the concerned
candidates were not granted any study
leave to pursue such courses. If the
Degrees were so obtained in violation of
the norms and parameters laid down by
the concerned Department, the matter
assumes completely different complexion.
The directions issued by this Court in the
judgment and the Order never directed to
confer
such
advantages
which
the
candidates were otherwise not enjoying on
the
date
when
the
judgment
and
clarificatory Order were passed. If there
was serious infirmity in the Degrees so
obtained by the candidates, the matter
ought to be sorted out either through
representation
or
through
properly
instituted challenge in that behalf. If the
promotion was not granted and was not
being enjoyed as on the day, when the
judgment was passed, there was no
violation of any direction issued by this
Court. As is evident, the representations
made by the Contempt Petitioner claimed
conferral of certain status and benefits
which they were not enjoying earlier. If
1352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there be any grievance on that front, the
entitlement needs to be established in
proceedings other than a Contempt
Petition.

17. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned
Senior Advocate, was, therefore completely
justified in relying upon the following
observations passed by this Court in J.S.
Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Ors.
MANU/SC/0037/1997 : (1996) 6 SCC 291:

"6. The question then is whether
the Division Bench was right in setting
aside the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It
is contended by Mr. S.K. Jain, the learned
Counsel appearing for the Appellant, that
unless the learned Judge goes into the
correctness of the decision taken by the
Government in preparation of the seniority
list in the light of the law laid down by
three Benches, the learned Judge cannot
come to a conclusion whether or not the
Respondent had willfully or deliberately
disobeyed the orders of the Court as
defined Under Section 2(b) of the Act.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court necessarily has to go into the
merits of that question. We do not find that
the contention is well founded. It is seen
that, admittedly, the Respondents had
prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991.
Subsequently promotions came to be
made. The question is whether seniority
list is open to review in the contempt
proceedings to find out whether it is in
conformity with the directions issued by
the earlier Benches. It is seen that once
there
is
an
order
passed
by
the
Government on the basis of the directions
issued by the court, there arises a fresh
cause of action to seek redressal in an
appropriate forum. The preparation of the
seniority list may be wrong or may be
right or may or may not be in conformity
with the directions. But that would be a
fresh cause of action for the aggrieved
party to avail of the opportunity of judicial
review. But that cannot be considered to
be the wilful violation of the order. After
re-exercising
the
judicial
review
in
contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by
the learned Single Judge cannot be given
to redraw the seniority list. In other words,
the learned Judge was exercising the
jurisdiction to consider the matter on
merits in the contempt proceedings. It
would not be permissible Under Section 12
of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench
has exercised the power Under Section 18
of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance
being a judgment or order of the Single
Judge; the Division Bench corrected the
mistake committed by the learned Single
Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary
for the State to file an appeal in this Court
against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge when the matter was already seized
of the Division Bench."

8.
Having considered the rival
submissions of learned counsel for parties, this
Court has noticed that writ Court vide its order
dated 08.05.2017, directed the contemnor to
decide the representation of the petitioner by a
reasoned and speaking order.

9. The contemnor vide its order dated
07.09.2019, has decided the representation
of the petitioner by a reasoned and
speaking order therefore, the direction
issued by the writ court has been duly
complied in its letter and spirit by the
contemnor and no willful disobedience can
be alleged on the contemnor in view of the
law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ashok Kumar and others
and in case of Sudhir Vasudeva (Supra).

10. So far as the argument of learned
counsel for petitioner regarding law laid
1 All. Santosh Kumar Maurya Vs. Sri Alok Kumar
1353
down by the Division Bench of this Court
in UP Nursing Home Association and
others (Supra) is concerned, in that case
this Court has reiterated the views
expressed by it in the case of Dr.
Ravindra Kumar Goel and others vs.
State of U.P. and another decided on
27.4.2004 in Special Appeal No.320 of
2004, there were peculiar facts and
particularly background in which the
directions were issued to secure the ends
of justice while exercising the contempt
jurisdiction. The directions issued were
under
exceptional
circumstance,
otherwise, in para 7 of the judgment in
U.P. Nursing Home Association (Supra),
the Division Bench has reiterated the view
that in contempt jurisdiction, a Judge
cannot exercise a writ jurisdiction and
therefore, prayer of the petitioner for
issuing certain directions is refused. Even
otherwise, under Article 141 of the
Constitution, the law declared by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court being the law of
the land is binding on all Courts and
Tribunals
and
authorities
in
India
including this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Narendra Singh vs. State of
Punjab reported in AIR 2014 SC 1839
(Supp.) has again held that the law
declared by the Supreme Court in the form
of judgment became binding precedent
upon the High Courts and subordinate
Courts and has to be followed under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sudhir Vasudeva (Supra) and Ashok
Kumar and others (Supra) as well as
keeping
in
view
the
significant
characteristics of the doctrine of stare
decisis, the contempt petition is dismissed.

11. Consigned to record.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1352

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2014

Niyamullah & Ors. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sumit Gupta, Sri Abhishek Srivastava,
Sri Satish Trivedi, Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, Sri
Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri Syed Wajid Ali

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri K.K. Rao

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Sections 147, 304/149, 504, 506 - Appeal
against conviction.

In present case the injury on the person of
deceased were not on vital part. Rather over
upper and lower limbs with back and trial has
concluded that it was not with intention to
cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death. Though, those injuries
were grievous, resulting fracture as well as
death of injured on the same day of
occurrence. (para 10)

On the basis of facts and evidence placed on
record, prosecution was successful to prove its
case against appellants. (para 9)

The argument is for quantum of section it was
apparently of ten years rigorous imprisonment
with fine, which seems to be not in proportion
to degree of offence, because each of the
convicts
appellants
are
of
no
criminal
antecedent. They remained in prison since last
more than six years in this case crime number.
On the facts and circumstances and balancing
the societal need of punishment with their
chance of reformation for bringing them in