Mantosh

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Saturday, January 22, 2022

Printed For: Saket Saket, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 SCC OnLine Pat 285 : (1996) 2 PLJR 317
Patna High Court

(BEFORE RADHA MOHAN PRASAD, J.)
Mantosh Kumar Singh & ors. … Petitioners;

Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. … Respondents.
M.J.C. No. 1468 of 1996
Decided on July 23, 1996
ORDER
1. By this application, the petitioners pray for initiation of a contempt proceeding
against Shri Ajay Kumar, Director, Directorate of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar,
Patna (opposite party no. 2) who has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of
this Court as well as the undertaking given to this Court as is mentioned in the order
dated 20th May, 1996 passed in M.J.C. No. 2298 of 1995 and for punishing the said
opposite party for the same.
2. Petitioner no. 1 filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4562 of 1995 in this
Court seeking direction to the respondents not to absorb the surplus employees of the
consolidation scheme on the post of Panchayat Sewak in pursuance of letter no. 5448
dated 24.6.1989 and further for directing the respondents to send the name of the
petitioner for training of Panchayat Sewak in terms of the letter of the Directorate
dated 15th June, 1994 and thereafter to take steps for appointment in accordance
with law. The Court, while hearing the said writ case after noticing from the counter
affidavit filed in the said case as well as
Page: 319
the letter of the District Magistrate dated 16.8.1995 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition)
and that of the Director dated 25.8.1995 (Annuxere 9 of the writ petition) that the
proposal to adjust/absorb the services of the surplus employees of the consolidation
scheme against the post of Panchayat Sewak have been modified to the extent that
such consideration shall be given after appointing all the Dalpatis who are duly
qualified, held that there may not be any hurdle against the District Magistrate to send
the names of the petitioner and other similarly situated person for training.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the concerned district shall issue necessary
direction so that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons can complete their
training in the batch in question.
3. However, when the said direction of this Court was not complied, petitioner no. 1
filed M.J.C. No. 2298 of 1995 for initiating contempt proceeding against the District
Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram and other concerned officials and to punish them.
4. In the said contempt petition notices were issued to the opposite parties and
when after several indulgences granted and direction issued to the District Magistrate
to appear in person, he did not appear a warrant of arrest had to be issued against
him, whereupon the District Magistrate appeared and filed a show cause.
5. After not being satisfied with the said show cause in regard to the compliance of
the direction of this Court as also considering his deliberate action, the Court took
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
serious view of the matter, whereupon a prayer was made for adjournment for filing
further show cause also on the question for imposition of punishment.
6. On 20.5.1996 a supplementary show cause was filed by the District Magistrate
annexing a letter issued by him vide Memo No. 158 dated 16.5.1996 in compliance of
the aforementioned letter, 34 Dalpatis, including the present petitioners, were directed
to join the Central Training Institute, Brahmway at Ranchi on 1st July, 1996 for the
training of Dalpatis. It was stated in the said supplementary show cause that the
resolution dated 3.12.1994 of the Selection Committee for appointment of Panchayat
Sewak sent by the District Magistrate, Rohtas had been rejected, vide Memo No. 45/C
dated 10.5.1996 by the Department. In paragraph 4 it was stated that after issuance
of the aforementioned order, the District Magistrate (opposite party no. 1) had given a
note to the department to send untrained 34 Dalpatis for training and thereafter the
Government accepted the said proposal and the same was communicated by the
Director, Panchayati Raj to him. Accordingly, he decided to send them for training and
all 34 untrained Dalpatis, including the petitioners, had been asked to join the training
beginning from 1st July, 1996 at Central Training Institute, Brahmway, Ranchi, vide
the aforesaid letter dated 16th May, 1996.
7. In view of the aforesaid subsequent action of the District Magistrate, the
contempt matter was dropped and the M.J.C. application was dismissed.
8. It is stated by the petitioners that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, contained
in letter dated 16.5.1996, 34 Dalpatis, including the petitioners herein joined the
Central Training Institute, Brahmway at Ranchi on 1st July, 1996 but their joining was
not accepted by the principal of the Training Institute who told them that the Director,
Panchayati Raj (opposite party no. 2 herein) had sent an order through fax on
29.6.1996 for not providing training to them. Thereafter the
Page: 320
petitioners approached the Director, Panchayati Raj by filing representation on 2nd

July, 1996 enclosing the order of this Court and demanded for the aforementioned fax
message which was denied to them and it is alleged that opposite party no. 2 abused
them. It is also stated that all 34 persons, including the petitioners are on the road
despite the order of this Court, pursuant to which the approval was granted by the
Government and the District Magistrate issued the aforementioned letter dated
16.5.1996 directing the petitioners to join the training on 1st July 1996. It is, thus,
contended that the action of the Director (opposite party no. 2) is wilful and deliberate
for not complying with the order of this Court by depriving them of the training and as
such his action is deliberate and contemptuous and liable for punishment. It is also
claimed by them that they are entitled to get the compensation from the authority to
provide justice to them.
9. In the present matter learned counsel appearing for the Director (opposite party
no. 2) produced a copy of the letter dated 4th July, 1996 issued by the Director on
5.7.1996 from which it appears that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the
training to be commenced from 22nd July, 1996 for which a quota was fixed for them.
10. By order dated 5.7.1996, the Court having failed to appreciate the said attitude
of the Director in issuing the aforementioned fax message as well as the letter dated
4th July, 1996 permitting the petitioners to participate in the training to be
commenced from 22nd July, 1996 and not from 1st July, 1996 pursuant to the order
of the District Magistrate, filed in this Court in the earlier contempt proceeding, the
Director (opposite party no. 2) was directed to file his show cause explaining his
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conduct by 8.7.96 when the Director was also directed to appear in person.
11. On 8.7.1996, the Director appeared in person and submitted his show cause.
The Court, prima facie, being not satisfied gave further opportunity to opposite party
no. 2 to bring entire materials by filing further show cause and/or taking steps as
considered proper/advised to defend himself. The matter was directed to be listed on
16th July, 1996 for final hearing and disposal.
12. On 16.7.1996, the Director contemner (opposite party no. 2) was present in
Court. He was asked whether he wanted further opportunity to defend himself. His
answer was in negative. Hearing was concluded and 19.7.1996 was fixed for orders.
13. In the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 he has tried to justify
his action for shifting of the date of training from 1st July, 1996 to 22nd July, 1996. It
is stated that when the order for training from 1st July, 1996 was issued, he was not
the Director of Panchayati Raj as he was transferred as District Magistrate, Patna
where he joined on 28.3.96. However, he admits that he relinquished the charge of
the District Magistrate, Patna on 27th May, 1996 and joined as Director, Panchayati
Raj on the next date. It is also stated that for training, the normal practice in the
Department is to send 200 Dalpatis for training and for that the file was moved for
sanction of Rs. 2,46,150/-. According to the opposite party no. 2, the aforesaid file
was sent to the Finance Department on 27.5.1996 after obtaining the approval of the
departmental head and the Finance Department made some queries in the file and
returned the same on 15.6.1996. After meeting the said queries, the file was again
sent to the Finance Department on 20.6.1996 and the
Page: 321
Finance Department immediately thereafter approved the amount on 21.6.1996.

Pursuant to the said approval a sanction order was issued by the Rural Development
Department on 23.6.1996, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure A.
14. In paragraph 9 of the said show cause a plea has been taken that since
sanction of the fund took time, as such the message was sent through fax by opposite
party no. 2 to the District Magistrate, Rohtas as well as a copy of the same to the
Principal of the Training Institute. In paragraph 9 it is stated that after obtaining
sanction order opposite party no. 2 sent the necessary information to all the District
Magistrates, including the District Magistrate, Rohtas to send the Dalpatis for training
from 22.7.1996. In paragraph 11 of the show cause it is stated that the date was
shifted because the sanction and approval was not received by the department prior to
21.6.1996. It is thus contended that the actions of the Director, Panchayati Raj is not
wilful and deliberate and thus, the prayer in the show cause is to accept it and dismiss
the contempt petition.
15. Supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
In paragraph 6 it is admitted that the Director (O.P. 2) and other concerned
authorities were advised by the learned Additional Advocate General No. III to send
the persons at whose instance the order dated 26.9.1995 was passed for training of
Dalpatis and necessary direction must be issued to the authorities concerned.
However, it is pleaded that the present opposite party no. 2 was not the Director at
the relevant time when, according to him, one Sri N.N. Sinha was acting as Director,
Panchayati Raj. It is stated that Mr. Sinha has given a note dated 14.5.1996 to the
Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Rural Development Department for arranging training
of 200 Dalpatis which was approved by the Commissioner on 15.5.1996. Therefore Mr.
Sinha ordered on 15.5.1996 that out of 200 Dalpatis, 34 Dalpatis of Rohtas will be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
given training which shall start from 1.7.1996 and fund be arranged in that regard and
pursuant to the said order of the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary of the department as
well as of Sri Sinha, the District Magistrate, Rohtas was informed vide letter no. 2564
dated 17th May, 1996. In paragraph 9 it is stated that the order of this Court dated
20.5.1996 was not sent to the Director, Panchayati Raj and that the same was
produced before opposite party no. 2 by the petitioners along with the representation
dated 2.7.1996. In paragraph 12 it is stated that opposite party no. 2 has made a
query as to what hap-pend to the training of Dalpatis and in paragraph 14 it is stated
that the office gave a note to the effect that it is not possible to arrange training with
effect from 1.7.1996. Thereafter the aforementioned fax message was sent. In
paragraph 16 it is stated that after the adjournment of the present M.J.C. on 8.7.1996,
the opposite party no. 2 telephoned to the District Magistrate, Rohtas as well as the
Principal, Central Training Institute, Brahmway, Ranchi to send the information as to
when the information about the postponement of the training was given to the
petitioners. The District Magistrate sent letter no. 2423 dated 3.7.1996 enclosing note
of the Incharge Assistant, Panchayat Karyalaya, Rohtas, passed wherein it was stated
that all the 34 Dalpatis were given information on 30.6.1996 about the postponement
of the training who were shown the aforementioned fax message and asked to sign on
it but they refused to sign. Thereafter a notice was hung in the Panchayat Office. The
note of the In-charge
Page: 322
Assistant is of 8th July, 1996. A photo copy of the said note has been annexed as
Annexure C. It is stated that the second Instructor, Ranchi also sent a fax message to
the Director, Panchayati Raj about the information given to the Dalpatis. A photo copy
of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure D. The said photo copy of the letter
bears 9.6.1996 as the date under the signature of the said second Instructor.
16. A rejoinder to the show cause has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. In
paragraph 3 of the said rejoinder, the petitioners have stated that for the last five
years, the normal practice for sending on training of Dalpatis was not done. However,
in January, 1995 a training camp was organised but 21 were stopped by opposite
party no. 2 without assigning any reason though the said training camp was organised
after the direction of this Court in the writ application filed by the Dalpatis of the
district of Godda. The said Dalpatis moved this Court in contempt by filing M.J.C. No.
1465 of 1995 whereafter the authorities organised the training camp after taking
approval of the Government and they got the training. It is thus, contended that it is
wrong to say that normal practice is to send 200 Dalpatis for training. In paragraph 16
it is stated that opposite party no. 2 stopped the training by his fax message on
29.6.1996 without fixing further date and the date had been fixed by him in 4.7.1996
only after filing of this contempt petition about which learned Additional Advocate
General No. Ill informed him on telephone. It is stated that earlier also the schedule
was fixed for training but it was postponed in order to defeat the orders passed by this
Court in the connected writ case.
17. In paragraph 10 of the said rejoinder it is stated that in the Training Institute
the petitioners were residing since 1st July, 1996 but they have been asked to return
back and come again after 8th July, 1996 and threatening was being given to them
that if they would not vacate the institute, they would face the consequences in the
result of the training. Due to the said attitude the petitioners were forced to leave the
institute on 11th July, 1996 causing them serious financial loss so much that they
were deprived of Rs. 20.50 per day as allowances and other facilities like medical and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
travelling allowance. In paragraph 12 it is stated that the fooding and lodging has
been arranged by the petitioners and others till 11th July, 1996 on their own cost.
18. Learned Additional Advocate General No. III submitted that from the facts
stated in the show cause as well as in supplementary show cause filed on behalf of
opposite party no. 2, no case for contempt is made out. According to him, opposite
party no. 2 has taken all necessary steps for compliance of the order of this Court and
his action cannot be said to be deliberate/intentional to flout or circumvent the order
of this Court.
19. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Additional Advocate
General. From the plea taken in the show cause and the supplementary show cause, I
feel persuaded to hold that opposite party no. 2 has deliberately delayed in completing
all the formalities which according to him, were required to be completed before the
petitioners and others could be sent for training. He has stated that when the order
was issued on 16.5.96 fixing for training to commence from 1st July, 1996, he was not
the Director, Panchayati Raj. I fail to appreciate this plea.
20. The order in the connected writ case was passed on 26.9.1995 for sending
Dalpatis for training to complete the
Page: 323
same in the batch in question. Thereafter it appears that a training was conducted in
January, 1996 as is stated by the petitioners in the rejoinder which has not been
denied by opposite party no. 2.
21. Earlier the contempt matter was disposed of vide order dated 20th May, 1996
when it was stated by the opposite party that all 34 untrained Dalpatis, including the
petitioners, had been asked to join the training beginning from 1st July, 1996.
Admittedly, opposite party no. 2 relinquished the charge of District Magistrate, Patna
on 27th May, 1996 and joined as Director, Panchayati Raj on the next date. It is also
admitted that the order dated 20.5.1996 of this Court was sent to the office of the
Director, Panchayati Raj but still in paragraph 10 of the supplementary show case it is
pleaded that the said order was produced before opposite party no. 2 by the
petitioners along with the representation dated 2.7.1996 for the first time, when,
admittedly, the aforementioned fax message (Annexure B) was sent by opposite party
no. 2 himself on 29.6.1996. Further in paragraph 9 of the show cause filed by opposite
party no. 2 it is stated that after obtaining the sanction order, he sent the necessary
information to all District Magistrates.
22. From Annexures C and D of the supplementary show cause it appears that
opposite party no. 2 has made attempt to manufacture documents to show that the
petitioners had been given information about the postponement of the date on 30th
July, 1996 itself as is evident from Annexure which is signed by the second Instructor
on 9.6.1996 and the contents of the said document allege that the information was
given to all the 34 Dalpatis at the Sasaram Bus Stand on 30.6.1966 when they were
leaving for Ranchi.
23. Further, I fail to appreciate as to what was the necessity to take the approval of
the Finance Department when the State Government had already accepted the
proposal for sending 34 untrained Dalpatis for training and the same was
communicated by the Director to the District Magistrate, Rohtas which was filed in this
Court in the earlier contempt matter. However, even assuming that the approval of the
Finance Department was essential, even then, in my opinion, opposite party no. 2
should have taken all other steps for commencement of the training from 1st July,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 in anticipation of the approval of the Finance Department as the Government had
already accepted the proposal much before the said date. In any view of the matter,
admittedly, the Finance Department had accorded its approval on 21.6.1996 itself,
i.e., soon after the file was sent by the Directorate after meeting the queries on 20th
June, 1996. Thus, even after 21st June, 1996 when the Finance Department had
accorded its approval, there was sufficient time left for taking the necessary steps to
start the training from 1st July, 1996.
24. Though by now the law stands settled by the apex Court yet in this case
learned Additional Advocate General no. 3, who appeared for the contemner opposite
party also persuaded me to decide the question as to in what type of cases the
contempt would stand established.
25. Normally, this Court has always taken very liberal view in the contempt
matters. However, while hearing contempt matters for quite some time, I have noticed
that some of the officers in the State Government feel that unless contempt petition is
filed and, in some cases, a second comtempt petition is filed, they do not care to
comply the direction of the Court, even in such cases where time is fixed for
compliance. This callous attitude has developed, perhaps, because this
Page: 324
Court takes lenient view. The contempt petitions are considered as an execution
proceeding by the officer in this State, inasmuch as they take it for granted that a
written apology tendered in the show cause filed on their behalf would be accepted by
this Court and they would be left scot free without, in any manner, being harmed. This
attitude of the officers deserves to be deprecated. In fact, the leniency of this Court is
taken by the officers of the State as giving them authority to harass the person getting
relief from this Court. This has also resulted in increase in number of filing contempt
petitions as well as pendency of such matters substantially, so much so that when
during the years 1982 to 1990 the rate of filing was compartively very low, it has
immensely increased during the years 1991 to 1996 bringing the present number of
pendency of the contempt matters in this Court to about 2,287. During the last 2-3
months, since I have been hearing contempt matters, I have noticed that in almost all
cases the moment the matter is taken up and accommodation of one day or two days
is granted, the order is complied by the contemners and brought on the record by
filing show cause/second show cause or producing the necessary orders/notification in
this Court. From this it is evident that the authority in the State or in any institution
do not bother for compliance of the judgment/order/direction of Court until some
coercive actions are taken, such as for their personal appearance in Court or by
issuance of warrant of arrest for their personal appearance, or cost is awarded giving
them opportunity to file show cause in regard to compliance of the order/direction
and/or when they find that this Court would not spare for such disobedience.
26. Out of the pendency of the contempt matters most of cases are against the
authorities of the State Government. I had requested the learned Advocate General on
earlier occasions that some solution to this problem should be evolved by the State
Government in order to reduce unnecessary wastage of time of this Court, the
expenses and as well as to save the officials from appearance before this Court, due to
which the public exchequer has to suffer, besides that their working in the offices is
hampered. I had also indicated that in case some solution is found out, that would
reduce the number of pendency of contempt matters in this Court, which would give
more time for disposal of many other important matters pending before this Court. The
learned Advocate General later, had informed that he had discussions with the Chief
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary and other Secretaries, who are heads of the various Departments and
perhaps, a general instruction had been issued by the Chief Secretary. However, the
contents of the said instruction is not known. But I find that there has been no
improvement in this regard and still the authorities, on one or the other baseless
pleas, such as, an appeal before this Court or before the Supreme Court has been filed
against the judgment/order and the same is pending, though no interim order is
passed in the said appeal, the officer has been transferred from the said Department
and the new incumbent joined recently, the process to comply with the direction took
some time and in some cases where the question of payment is involved, plea is taken
that the fund is not available. I am unable to accept any of such pleas to defeat the
effect of the judgment/order/direction of the Court and allow the contemnors to be
absolved of the responsibility of carrying out the judgment/order/direction. It is well
settled that mere filing of appeal does not automatically operate as stay of the order in
appeal and in absence of such stay
Page: 325
being obtained from the appellate court or the court, which rendered the order, the
order continues to be operative and noncompliance of the order in such circumstances,
will amount to contempt. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of
the Supreme Court reported in (1973) 1 SCC 446 : A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2466.
27. There may be some cases, in which the authorities may have very strong case
in the appeal against the judgments and order, the non-compliance of which has been
complained of in the contempt matters. But I do not see any reason, not to comply the
judgment and order during mere pendency of the appeal in the absence of any stay
order passed by the appellate Court. The order can very well be complied within
reasonable time, which, in my opinion, may be a couple of months, but in no case can,
beyond the time fixed by the Court for its compliance, which shall be subject to final
result in the appeal.
28. The transfer of officers can also be no ground to defeat its implementation. It
may be true that the officer, who was posted at the relevant time when the
judgment/order is passed would also be equally responsible for non-compliance of the
judgment/order, but if the violation still continues the officer posted at the time when
the contempt matter is heard, will be equally responsible and he cannot be absolved of
the contemptuous act.
29. As regards the plea that the process takes time or that the fund is not
available, I fail to appreciate this plea. There cannot be any such process, which would
lead to non-compliance of the judgment/order for months and in some cases even
years. With my experience since I have been hearing contempt matters, I can say that
where there is will a way is found out. Whenever, I take strong exception to such a
plea being taken, almost after a year, the notification/cheques have been produced on
the very next day. This is sufficient to domonstrate that unless a sword is made to
hang over the head of the concerned officer, he does not bother for the compliance. I
have found that even after disposal of L.P.A. which is the usual plea taken in almost all
contempt matters no action is taken for months until the contempt matter is taken up
for hearing by this Court. This is really shocking and a very sad state of affair
prevailing in authorities, whether it is State or its instrumentalities or in some cases
even the Central Government and its instrumentalities, this really requires immediate
check and thus, I am constrained to observe that this does not only harass the poor
litigants, but also interferes with the course of justice, required to be imparted by this
Court in various other important matters. If such action of the authorities is allowed to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
go un-checked, it would result in orders of Court ceasing to have any meaning and
judicial power itself becoming a mockery.
30. The orders of the Courts are to be implemented and acted upon with
promptitude. If their implementation is unduly delayed, it would amount to showing
scant responsibility to Court concerned and its judicial process, which would obviously
be a serious contempt of Court, even though the person sought to be injuncted or
restrained might have no intention to flout the orders of the Court for, in many cases
the very object of obtaining the order of stay or restraint would be rendered negatory
and the things sought to be interfered or restrained by the Court might be
accomplished or completed, such as in the case of stay, demolition-etc. Moreover,
considerable delay in carrying out order of a Court after notice, without adequate
explanation for laches
Page: 326
would, by itself, constitute serious contempt, inasmuch as it tends to undermine the

prestige and authority of Court of law efficacy of its judicial process. A person, who has
obtained an order in his favour from a Court is entitled to instant relief and its delayed
implementation would discredit the administration of justice. A reference may be
made to the decisions reported in A.I.R. 1952 Cal. 397, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 190, A.I.R.
1961 S.C. 1367 and A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1069 (Oswald “Contempt of Court” Halsbury’
Laws of England, Third Edition, Vol. 8, page 7, para 8).
31. Thus, in my opinion, a time has come when the Court should not grant any
latitude to such persons, who treat the contempt jurisdiction as jurisdiction of the
executing courts. In fact, strong exceptions should be taken for such delayed actions
and heavy costs may be awarded to be realised from the pocket of the concerned
contemner, besides holding them guilty and imposing appropriate punishment as
considered fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
32. Considering the above mentioned facts, I wish to lay down certain criteria for
strict compliance of the judgment/order/direction of this Court by the concerned
authorities including the authority/authorities in the State or in the Central
Government or any of the instrumentalities under them except in cases of post-retiral
dues, for which general guidelines have been laid down by this court [See 1996 (2)
PLJR 349]
(i) The concerned authorities must comply the judgment/order/direction given by
this Court within two months of its receipt/communication where no time-limit is
fixed for the same by the Court. In case the concerned authorities find any
difficulty in complying with the judgment/order/direction of this Court within the
aforesaid time, then they must file a petition for extension of time in that matter
before the expiry of the aforesaid time explaining the difficulties.
(ii) Where time is fixed for the compliance in the judgment/order/direction of this
Court, it must be complied within that time and in case there is some plausible
difficulties, then the concerned authorities must file a petition in that matter
itself explaining the difficulties praying for extension of time, atleast one week
before expiry of the time. In the said petition the authority must also furnish the
details of the actions taken by him/them so far to comply the
judgment/order/direction:
(iii) In case the concerned authority does not act within the aforesaid time, the
party alleging non-compliance should first move the Head of the Department
personally, under whom the concerned authority is posted/functioning, by filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
representation giving details and alleging non-compliance. Such a representation

shall be filed only after the period of two months or after the expiry of the
period/time fixed by the Court in the judgment/order/direction for compliance;
(iv) On filing of such a representation the concerned Head of the Department shall
take appropriate action against the concerned authority under him in appropriate
cases even by immediately placing him under suspension for noncompliance of
the order within a fortnight of the filing of the representation before him. In case,
where certain actions have to be taken by other Department/Authority also, then
the Head of the Department shall approach the other Departmental
Heads/Authorities for compliance of the order of this Court and if even thereafter
he finds any difficulty, then he should apprise the entire facts to the highest
authority/in the case of Departments of the State, to the Chief Secretary. In a
case
Page: 327
where the approval of Council of Ministers or of the Chief Minister is required, the
concerned officer of the Head of the Department shall place the matter before them by
giving details that there is a judgment/order of this Court, which is required to be
complied within specified time;
(v) If the party/parties find that still the order of this Court is not complied within
the aforementioned time, he may file M.J.C. application for initiation of contempt
proceeding against the concerned authorities including the concerned
Head/Heads of the Department;
(vi) In regard to the contempt matters pending in this Court the compliance must
be made within two weeks unless otherwise directed in particular case and the
same should be brought to the notice of the Court by filing show cause and
mentioning before this Court that the order has been complied.
(vii) In the case of interim order, passed by this court, the same should be
implemented forthwith.
33. It is made clear that non-compliance of the aforementioned peremptory
directions will itself constitute contempt and this Court will take serious view and may
also impose appropriate-punishment for the same, besides for non-compliance of the
judgment/order direction in the main matter, the violation of which the party/parties
may be complaining.
34. Let an extract of the aforesaid general direction be communicated to the Chief
Secretary, Government of Bihar for its communication to all its authorities in the State
and its communication to all its authorities in the State and its instrumentalities and a
copy to the Ministry of Law of Government of India for its circulation to all its
concerned Departments and authorities as well as a copy to the learned Advocate
General, Bihar, Patna.
35. In the instant case, the petitioners, who are low paid employees, promptly went
to attend the training for 1st July, 1996 pursuant to the representation made before
this Court, but where not allowed to join, as on 29th June, 1996 a fax message was
sent, about which no communication was sent to the petitioners either through a letter
or by issuing notice in the newspaper. The plea taken that all the 34 Dalpatis including
the petitioners were informed at the first instance is not acceptable at all. I find it to
be strange as to how the Incharge Assistant knew that the said Dalpatis were leaving
by a particular Bus for Ranchi. I have already mentioned above that the note of the
Incharge Assistant, on which reliance has been placed in support of the above fact is
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of 8th July, 1996, i.e. after this contempt matter was heard on 5th July, 1996. On 5th
July, 1996 this Court directed the opposite party no. 2 to explain his conduct by 8th
July, 1996. On 8th July, 1996 a show cause was filed on behalf of O.P. no. 2, in which
no such statement was made. However, this Court enquired from O.P. no. 2, who was
present in Court as to whether the said FAX message was ever issued or brought to
the notice of the petitioners before they reported themselves for training at Ranchi.
Only thereafter, in the second show cause, which was filed on 16th July, 1996, the
aforementioned note of the Incharge Assistant as well as the alleged letter dated
9.6.1996 of the Second Instructor have been brought on the record to show that all
the 34 Dalpatis were apprised of the FAX message by them.
36. I have already indicated that the letter of the second Instructor is purported to
have been written on 9.6.1996, which refers to the FAX message issued on 29th
Page: 328
June, 1994, and the alleged information given to Dalpatis at Sasaram Bus Stand on
30th June, 1994, which is not possible, as on 9.6.1996 neither the FAX message had
come in existence, nor the alleged fact regarding presence of Dalpatis at Sasaram Bus
Stand could be there. This document, which is photostat copy of the original annexed
as Annexure-D to the supplementary show cause, on the face of it, is a document
fabricated only for the purpose of defending the present contempt petition.
37. Even the next date was filed only after the second contempt petition was fixed
and the learned Additional Advocate General had personally contacted O.R no. 2.
38. The aforementioned facts leave no room for doubt that O.R no. 2 acted in utter
and intentional disregard of the orders of this Court considering himself to be above
this Court, as is also evident from the fact that if he had respect for the orders passed
by this Court and had any intention to comply the same, he had sufficient time to take
immediate steps for arranging for the training from 1st July, 1996, as was informed to
this Court even after the sanction was accorded by the Finance Department. But
instead of complying the same, he has taken all kinds of false plea in paragraph 10 of
his supplementary show cause in his defence including the fact that the order dated
20.5.96 was produced before him by the petitioners along with the representation
dated 2.7.1996 for the first time, when in fact, even prior to that he had issued the
FAX message on 29.6.1996 (Annexure-D) to his show cause defering the date of
training from 1st July, 1996 to a date to be notified later. The aforesaid actions of O.R
no. 2 have led to unnecessary harassment to the 34 Dalpatis including the petitioners,
who are low-paid employees, despite the order of this Court by incurring expenses
over travelling to Ranchi and back, besides lodging at Ranchi from 1st July, 1996 to
11th July, 1996 from their own pocket when they were entitled for the same from the
Government.
39. In view of the aforementioned evidence, I hold that the O.R no. 2 has wilfully
disobeyed the order of this Court and his conduct is such which substantially interferes
with the administration of justice. However, having regard to the fact that now training
is to commence from 22nd July, 1996 as also the fact that the contemner-O.P no. 2
has tendered apology, though coupled with attempt to justify the disobedience might
minimise the gravity of the offence committed by him, but he cannot be fully absolved
of the guilt.
40. Accordingly, I hold O.P. no. 2 to be guilty of contempt of this Court and impose
upon him a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to be paid from his own pocket,
out of which Rs. 2500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred) shall be deposited in this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court and Rs, 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred) shall be paid to the
petitioners within a week from today, failing which the O.P. no. 2 shall have to serve a
sentence of one week's simple imprisonment. The contemner-O.P. no. 2 shall file
receipt in this Court in token of the compliance of the aforementioned order imposing
the fine within a week, failing which this matter shall be posted for ‘orders’ when the
contemner-O.P. no. 2 shall appear in person for further action to be taken against him.
41. In the result, this petition is allowed.
Order dated 26.7.1996
42. This matter has been brought under the heading “To Be Mentioned” at the
instance of the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, who prays
Page: 329
that an extract copy of the general direction given in the order dated 23.7.1996 may
be served on her also for necessary compliance.
43. As prayed, let a copy of the order dated 23.7.1996 be also supplied to Mrs.
Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India.
44. Learned Additional Advocate General No. III states that though the requisition
for certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 23.7.1996 was made on the same day
when the order was delivered, but the copy has not been made available to him as
yet. As such, the opposite party no. 2 has not been able to avail the remedy by way of
appeal within the time fixed by this Court for compliance. However, Learned Additional
Advocate General No. III prays for extension of time for payment of fine by 2nd
August, 1996.
45. The prayer is allowed. The time for payment of fine granted, vide order dated
23.7.1996, is extended to 2nd August, 1996.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Mantosh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mantosh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Saturday, January 22, 2022

1996 SCC OnLine Pat 285 : (1996) 2 PLJR 317

Patna High Court

Mantosh Kumar Singh & ors. … Petitioners;

petitioners approached the Director, Panchayati Raj by filing representation on 2nd

Finance Department immediately thereafter approved the amount on 21.6.1996.

would, by itself, constitute serious contempt, inasmuch as it tends to undermine the

representation giving details and alleging non-compliance. Such a representation

You might also like