Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1575 (ALL)

J. K. SINGH v. RAM DAYAL

2006-07-05

ANJANI KUMAR, POONAM SRIVASTAVA

body2006
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants have filed this contempt appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge has observed as under : "upon issuance of notice affidavits have been exchanged and prima facie a triable case under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts act has made out against the following persons :-"1. Sri J. K. Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Basti. 2. Sri Ram Adhar Prasad, Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Deoria (Conservator of forest, East Region)3. Sri P. N. Shukla, Deputy Divisional forest Officer, Basti 4. Sri N. K. Singh, Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Harraiya 5. Sri Vijay Kumar, Deputy Divisional forest Officer, Gorakhpur (Conservator of forest, East Region)6. Sri Rambaran, Forest Circle Officer. Basti 7. Sri Alok Kumar Saxena, Forest Circle officer, Kaptanganj and all the seven should be present in person by the next date to enable the Court to frame charge against them. " ( 2 ) FROM the above it is clear that the court has not framed any charge against the appellants in this appeal and has fixed the next date, i. e. 6th July, 2006 for the purposes. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has relied upon a Division Bench order of this court passed in Contempt Appeal No. 1673 of 2003; T. George Joseph v. Vijay Kumar srivastava wherein the Division Bench of this Court in para 9 had observed as under:"we have carefully read the judgment under appeal and we find that the learned Contempt judge after considering the entire materials on record has come to a finding that there was intentional violation of the order of the Division Bench of this Court as the alleged contemnor had failed to follow the directions given by the Division Bench of this court on 7-12-2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38807 of 2000 and connected writ applications in preparing the seniority list of Entertainment and Betting tax Inspectors Grade-II and thereby willfully disobeyed the above order of this Court. Writ Petition No. 38807 of 2000 and connected writ applications in preparing the seniority list of Entertainment and Betting tax Inspectors Grade-II and thereby willfully disobeyed the above order of this Court. From the impugned order it also appears that the learned Contempt Judge has also exercised his jurisdiction by coming to a conclusion that the alleged contemnor had failed to follow the directions given by the division Bench of this Court. " ( 4 ) THE Division Bench in the case of T. George Joseph (supra) in para 8 has further held :"now the question is whether the impugned order comes within the meaning of any order or decision to punish for contempt if we hold that it is so, then there will be no difficulty in holding that an appeal lies against the aforesaid order. In our view the appeal is maintainable in law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 5 ) THE order impugned before the Division Bench in the case of T. George Joseph (supra) was an order whereby the learned contempt Judge had framed a charge which runs as follows :that you failed to follow the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court on 7-12-2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 38807 of 2000 and connected writ petitions in preparing the Seniority list, of entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector grade-II and thereby wilfully disobeyed the above order of this Court. ""after framing the charge the learned contempt Judge also directed the appellant to produce evidence in this defence of the charge by affidavit within three weeks. " ( 6 ) A perusal of the two orders one, passed in the present appeal and other passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the contempt Appeal No. 1673 of 2003 in the case of T. George Joseph (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, it is clear that the present case cannot be said to be a case which may be read as observed by the division Bench of this Court in the case of t. George Joseph (supra) to be an order or decision to punish for contempt. ( 7 ) IN view of what has been stated, to us it appears that the decision in the case of T. George Joseph (supra) does not help the appellants in any way and thus, in our opinion according to the phraseology used in section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act since the order impugned in the present appeal is not covered by the phrase to be an order or decision to punish for contempt. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, the present appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .