Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 2294 (ALL)

Sunita Agnihotri v. Suraj Singh

2004-11-18

MARKANDEY KATJU, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2004
JUDGMENT Markandey Katju, A.C.J. and Sunil Ambwani, J.—This contempt appeal has been filed against the orders of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 28.9.2004, 1.11.2004 and 2.11.2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6490 of 1993, Rajendra Kumar and another v. Board of Revenue and others. 2. It appears that the learned single Judge, who was hearing a writ petition, also assumed the powers of contempt of court. By his order dated 28.9.2004 he issued notices to the transferees of certain land to show cause as to why they should not be punished for wilful disobedience of the order of the Court dated 9.11.2003. Thereafter by the order dated 2.11.2004 he impleaded some parties, but exempted the personal presence of the transferees till the next date. 3. In our opinion, when a learned single Judge of this Court is hearing a writ petition, he is ordinarily not entitled to exercise the power of contempt of court. The jurisdiction of hearing contempt of court matters is allocated by Hon’ble the Chief Justice to some Bench/learned single Judge. When a learned single Judge hearing a writ petition passes an interim order, and if that order is not obeyed, then the same learned single Judge is not authorized to also exercise the power of contempt of court in relation to that matter (unless specifically authorized by Hon’ble the Chief Justice). 4. The remedy of any one aggrieved by an act of disobedience of the order of the Court is to file a contempt of court petition before the Bench/learned single Judge authorized by the Chief Justice to hear contempt matters. A contempt petition either under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution must be presented/listed before the Bench/learned single Judge to whom the power of contempt of court has been allocated by an order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. No Judge of this Court is free to clutch any jurisdiction he pleases, as that would tantamount to judicial indiscipline. It is only Hon’ble the Chief Justice who can allocate jurisdiction amongst the various Benches/learned Judges of this Court. Unless such jurisdiction has been conferred to any particular Bench/learned Judge, he has no power or authority to decide the matters pertaining to any particular jurisdiction. 5. It is only Hon’ble the Chief Justice who can allocate jurisdiction amongst the various Benches/learned Judges of this Court. Unless such jurisdiction has been conferred to any particular Bench/learned Judge, he has no power or authority to decide the matters pertaining to any particular jurisdiction. 5. In the present case, we find that the learned single Judge had only the power of a writ court, and he was not conferred with the power of contempt of court by any order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Hence, he could not validly have exercised the power of contempt of court, as he has done in this case. 6. In the circumstances, we quash the entire proceedings for contempt of court instituted by the learned single Judge by his order dated 28.9.2004, and the subsequent orders dated 1.11.2004 and 2.11.2004. However, it is open to the party, who complains of disobedience of any order of this Court to move a contempt of court petition before the appropriate Bench/learned single Judge which has been allocated the jurisdiction to hear contempt matters. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.