Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2303 (RAJ)

G. S. Sandhu v. Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan

2007-12-03

BHANWAROO KHAN, RAJESH BALIA

body2007
Honble BALIA, ACJ.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 7th May, 2007 in S.B. Contempt Petition No. 195/05 arising in respect of order dated 1.3.2005 deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3969/2002 vide order under appeal the appellant G.S. Sandhu (appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 561/2007) not guilty of contempt but still imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the ground that though earlier order passed by him is erroneous but he has no occasion to correct that order and, therefore, he is not guilty of contempt. (3). The other appeal is by Sudheer Bhargavea against the order finding him guilty of contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on 1.3.2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3969/2002 and imposing a punishment of undergoing simple imprisonment of 15 days with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine Rs. 10,000/-, further be liable for civil imprisonment of 15 days in addition to above. (4). The said writ petition No. 3969/2002 was preferred challenging the order of the State Government dated 25th September, 2002, suspending no objection certificate granted by it to the petitioner-applicant for opening new B.Sc. (N) College vide earlier order dated 24th April, 2002. It appears that during the pendency of the said writ petition the Indian Nursing Council was directed to inspect the petitioners institution vide its order dated 4th October, 2002 and it was noticed that said report has not been disclosed by the Indian Nursing Council though the inspection has been conducted. The order suspending NOC in case of the petitioner had not been revoked. The petitioner had also complained about the sitting over the matter for such a long period by the authority after suspending NOC issued by the Government and not deciding the matter. (5). After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge passed the following order which will be apposite to reproduce in extenso so as to have full import of the order and to consider whether a legitimate grievance about the willful disobedience of the said order is made out or survive for consideration after 12th January, 2006, in the circumstances:- "I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is clear from the Annex. It is clear from the Annex. 13 dated 25th Sept., 2002 that by this order, the no objection certificate itself has not been cancelled by the State Government, but has been suspended only. The State Government only suspended the no objection certificate by order dated 25th Sept., 2002. Since the matter is pending before the State Government and there is only interim order and the Government has not taken final decision in the matter of revocation of the no objection certificate and meanwhile, according to petitioner, the Nursing Council has inspected the petitioners institution and according to petitioner, the petitioners institution complied with all the requirements for the no objection certificate and petitioner in fact, was granted no objection certificate Annex. 4 by the State Government, therefore, the State Government may be directed to decide the matter immediately after considering the reports of the Nursing Council. In view of the above, without going into the allegations of malafide etc., looking to the nature of the relief claimed by the petitioner, it will suffice to direct the State Government to decide the proceedings initiated vide communication dated 25th Sept., 2002 about the cancellation of the petitioners no objection certificate granted by the State Government. The respondent Indian Nursing Council is directed to submit the inspection report to the State Government forthwith if has not been provided to the State Government and the State Government is directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with the rules and the law applicable in the matter of grant/revocation of the no objection certificate for opening the B.Sc. Nursing College. The respondent Indian Nursing Council shall provide the report to the State Government within a period of one month. The State Government shall decide the matter within three months thereafter. In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is partly allowed with the directions to the respondents as mentioned above." (6). It is in the aforesaid circumstances, in the light of aforesaid direction the petitioner moved S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 195/2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3969/2002 on 17th August, 2005 after serving notice for compliance of the order dated 17.7.2005. (7). In the petition, after referring to course of action of events which have been mentioned in the order, the grievance about the non-compliance of the direction dated 1.3.2005 was voiced by the petitioner in the following manner:- "3. (7). In the petition, after referring to course of action of events which have been mentioned in the order, the grievance about the non-compliance of the direction dated 1.3.2005 was voiced by the petitioner in the following manner:- "3. That after the decision, on behalf of the petitioner, a notice dated 29.5.2005 was served upon the Nursing Council of India so as to forward the recommendations to the State Government. A copy of the same is filed herewith and marked as Annexure C/2. 4. That thereafter, the Nursing Council of India informed the counsel for the petitioner vide letter dated 15.6.2005 that it has taken the steps in terms of the judgment and has sent the requisite information to the State Government. A copy of the letter dated 15.6.2005 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure C/3. In this view of the matter, the Nursing Council of India has passed on the requisite information to the Government. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent to do the needful in terms of the judgment of the Honble High Court. However, good deal of time has elapsed but no steps were taken by the respondent. In these circumstances, in order to avoid any kind of further litigation, on behalf of the petitioner, a notice for demand of justice dated 17.7.2005 was served upon the respondent thorough his counsel and requested him to revoke the suspension of NOC and allocate students to the petitioners institution in the ensuing session and to do everything which is necessary in the matter. The said notice was sent by registered post. A copy of the notice dated 17.7.2005 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure C/4. But, unfortunately, the time stipulated in the notice has also expired but nothing has been done in the matter. 5. That in view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the respondent is willfully disobeying, disregarding and flouting the order of the Honble High Court inasmuch as despite of receipt of recommendation from the Nursing Council of India, he has not revoked the suspension of NOC nor he has allotted the students to the petitioners institution. Thus, it is clear that the respondent has shown scant regard to the orders of the Honble High Court which clearly tantamount to committing contempt of Honble High Court." (8). Thus, it is clear that the respondent has shown scant regard to the orders of the Honble High Court which clearly tantamount to committing contempt of Honble High Court." (8). From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the contempt proceedings was primarily for not taking a decision within stipulated period as per order dated 1.3.2005 by the State Government. (9). We may notice here that the no date of submission of report by the Indian Nursing Council to the State Government had not been stated in the contempt petition, perhaps it was not within the knowledge of the applicant so as to de-demarcate the exact date of expiry of the period fixed by the Court for deciding the case relating to continuation of NOC. (10). We may notice here that in contempt petition as originally moved was only against G.S. Sandhu, Secretary, Medical and Health Department. Shri Sudheer Bhargav had been impleaded as party respondent, subsequently, perhaps because in the meanwhile the incumbent of office may have been transfered and succeeded by the newly impleaded officer. (11). After furnishing unconditional apology for delay in compliance of the order of this Court, in any manner, the respondent made the submission that in compliance of the directions of the Honble Court, the Indian Nursing Council did not submit its report. Thereafter the State Government vide letter dated 25.7.2005 directed the Joint Director, Primary and Health Services, Jodhpur to submit the report. The Joint Director submitted its report on 30th August, 2005. Thereafter the matter regarding the grant of NOC for opening the B.Sc. (N) College was considered and since in the opinion of the answering respondent as State functionary the petitioner did not fulfill the required conditions, the NOC granted to the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 12th January, 2006. A copy of the order dated 12th January, 2006 was also placed on record. (12). Ordinarily, the petition should have rested there leaving the petitioner to pursue his remedies against final order passed by the State Government, if he was aggrieved with the same. (13). However, the petitioner in his rejoinder denied the contentions raised in the reply of the respondents and joined the issue whether Indian Nursing Council had furnished the report required of it to the State Government or not. (13). However, the petitioner in his rejoinder denied the contentions raised in the reply of the respondents and joined the issue whether Indian Nursing Council had furnished the report required of it to the State Government or not. In rejoinder, the applicant referred to the letter of the Indian Nursing Council dated 2.6.2005 which was reproduced by the applicant in its rejoinder which reads as under:- "Please refer to the aforesaid direction by the Honble High Court of Rajasthan. It is informed that the Indian Nursing Council conducted inspection by physical verification of the institution, namely, Gorvi College of Nursing, Jodhpur for starting B.Sc. (N) Course in the State of Rajasthan by a team of inspectors on 27.12.2002. The council resolved on the basis of evaluation of the inspection report that the said institution has been permitted to start B.Sc. (N) Course for one year from 31st December 2002 with an intake of 40 (forty) students per year subject to approval of the State Nursing Council/University, but the decision of Inspection Report was withheld due to suspension of Govt. Order." (14). With the aforesaid reproduction of the letter dated 2.6.2005, it was further averred that:- "It is clear that so far as the petitioner institution is concerned, it was well equipped and was not only eligible but also suitable for starting B.Sc. (N) Course. The aforesaid information was reiterated by the Indian Nursing Council vide its letter dated 2nd June, 2005, therefore, it was obligatory upon the State Government to permit the petitioner institute to start B.Sc. (N) Course. The Honble Court has specifically directed to decide the same in accordance with the report of the Indian Nursing Council. Since the Indian Nursing Council has already adjudged the institute not only as eligible but also as suitable, therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual situation, the endeavour which now has been made by the State Government clearly tentamounts to aggravating the contempt. In the given circumstances, there was no justification for the State Government to direct the Joint Director, Medical and Health to submit the report, because of these formalities have already been completed while granting NOC in favour of petitioner." (15). In the given circumstances, there was no justification for the State Government to direct the Joint Director, Medical and Health to submit the report, because of these formalities have already been completed while granting NOC in favour of petitioner." (15). From the aforesaid rejoinder, two things are clear that the petitioner applicant joined issue on merit of order dated 12.1.2006 and further conveyed that the direction of the Court was to decide pending matters in accordance with the report of the Indian Nursing Council. (16). Closely reading the order of learned Single Judge nowhere contains the direction to the State Government to decide the pending matters in accordance with the report of the Indian Nursing Council. No boundaries except to act in accordance with law had been laid by the learned Single Judge while issuing directions on 1.3.2005 which was primarily for expediting the pending matters before it by giving time bound programme. These averments were an attempt to read something more and additional in the order which we do not find in the order. As a matter of fact the order of which willful disobedience is alleged had not decided anything on merit and considering the fact that NOC is only suspended and final decision is yet to be taken by the State Government, the decision would be taken at an early date for which time frame was fixed. In that circumstances beyond taking decision in accordance with law, as understood by the respondents in writ petition, within time frame nothing more direction can be read therein to require holding any enquiry into the merit of the decision taken by the State Government by considering material before it. (17). Be that as it may, it is in the light of this submission, the proceedings continued before the learned Single Judge and the subsequent record and the proceedings go to show that endeavor was made out to enquire into and to examine validity of order of the State Government dated 12th January, 2006. For which further informations was required and inspection was directed to be made. The State Government responded to act in accordance with that part of the steps taken by the learned Single Judge in the light of ground raised by the petitioner applicant in rejoinder about validity of order dated 12.1.2006. (18). For which further informations was required and inspection was directed to be made. The State Government responded to act in accordance with that part of the steps taken by the learned Single Judge in the light of ground raised by the petitioner applicant in rejoinder about validity of order dated 12.1.2006. (18). It is on account of those exploring into the merits of the order and contours or the authority of the State Government in dealing with the matter relating to NOC in the context of the opinion of the Indian Nursing Council the aforesaid findings against the two officers were recorded and the orders under appeal were made respectively against Sudhir Bhargava and G.S. Sandhu, who were the successive Secretaries in the Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan during that period. (19). While learned counsel for the appellant urges that special jurisdiction of the High Court for punishment for its own contempt does not go beyond determining whether the directions issued by the Court had been complied with or not so as to find out whether there has been willful disobedience of the order of the Court to fall within the province of contempt. It is a case of civil contempt and not criminal contempt and if the respondents are found to be guilty of willful disobedience of the directions of this Court, to pass the appropriate orders of punishment. (20). However, beyond this to examine the merit of the orders which were required to be passed by the respondents in accordance with law is not within the province of enquiry. Not much can be made out from phraseology used in the order "to pass an order in accordance with law", as in any case, the respondents are required to pass an order only in accordance with law, even if such directions were not there for that matter every public or statutory body entrusted with task to discharge any public function or statutory function is under an mendate only to act in accordance with law and he is immured from any proceeding in respect of any decision taken by him in discharge of his duties unless he can be found to have acted with malice or motives to act otherwise. (21). (21). If considering the order dated 12.1.2006 it to be in violation of law by the affected parties they may have right to challenge the same by choosing appropriate course of remedy including by way of judicial review invoking the jurisdiction of this Court but while exercising jurisdiction for punishing the respondents for contempt of Court, the validity of such orders passed in exercise of its authority cannot be ordinarily examined and relief cannot be granted in respect thereof and surely in the present case no relief has been granted to the respondent applicants in respect of the order dated 12.1.2006 in those proceedings. (22). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge pointing out that the respondents have shown disrespect in letter and spirit to comply with the direction dated 1.3.2005 by not acting in accordance with the opinion of the Indian Nursing Counsel conveyed to them vide communication dated 2nd June, 2005 after the order dated 1.3.2005, and subsequent to the filing of the contempt petition after taking serveral opportunities had defeated the orders of the Court by cancelling the order. The pending notice of suspension has not been decided on the basis of material that was also with the contemnors at the time of issuing the suspension notice but the order dated 12.1.2006 was founded on material subsequently collected through the Joint Director and thereafter under the orders of the Court taking time and again by reconsidering the order dated 12.1.2006, the same was not revoked. (23). The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- applicant has found favour with the learned Single Judge about the merit of the order dated 12.1.2006 and the result of the subsequent proceedings which took during the course of the pendency of the contempt petition and the following consequences have been recorded by the learned Single Judge:- In view of the reasons given above, it is held that the order dated 12.1.2006 has been passed without looking into the material lying with the Government itself in relation to the eligibility of the petitioners claim for the no objection from the State Government for opening the B.Sc. Nursing Course College. Nursing Course College. Further in fact before passing the order dated 12.1.2006, efforts were made for collecting fresh evidence with clear intention to discard the material available on record which were in favour of the petitioner and that too on absolutely frivolous and false grounds. On 25.4.2006 only the time was sought on behalf of the contemners to clarify how the important and relevant evidence was not considered by the concerned authorities, then within no time in mere four days, it is said that the matter was again examined by the Government and thereafter, the report dated 29.4.2006 has been submitted before this Court to justify the rejection of the petitioners NOC. In view of the reasons given above the report dated 29.4.2006 is nothing but action of deliberate act of not acting honestly and a clear act to mislead this Court by submitting wrong facts which are mentioned above in this order. Further, the observations made in the order dated 23.5.2006 of this Court after receipt of the report dated 29.4.2006 were also deliberately ignored and a camouflage created in the subsequently passed order dated 7.7.2006 that the contemner has looked into the order of this Court dated 1.3.2005 again and it has also been projected that the authorities carefully considered the order of this Court dated 23.5.2006 by quoting the order of this Court dated 23.5.2006 in the order dated 7.7.2006 but from the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that in fact the authorities were clear in their mind and they decided not to decide the claim of the petitioner in pursance of the order of this Court dated 1.3.2005 and they were bent upon to collect evidence and further evidence and reasons and further reasons for justifying their decision of rejection of No Objection Certificate of the petitioner institution on false pretexts, false reasons and on the basis of the irrelevant considerations. In all the orders, neither the past was considered the material available on record nor the present material which were collected by the authorities nor the material which could have been taken into consideration as subsequent events, were looked into and lastly, that the authorities deliberately considered subsequent material but with clear object, did not consider the petitioners claim that the constructed the hospital with 100 beds capacity with the approval of the State Government. (24). (24). We have bestowed our careful consideration on these contentions and finding reached by the learned Single Judge. (25). It appears to us that the whole excursion to find out the validity of the order dated 12.1.2006 on merit and other grounds was beyond the scope of proceedings initiated for contempt against the respondents about the willful disobedience of the order dated 1.3.2005. (26). The learned Single Judge has referred to the fact that before passing the order dated 12.1.2006 efforts were made for collecting the fresh evidence which were in favour of the petitioner and that too on absolutely frivolous and false ground. But the order dated 1.3.2005 nowhere states that the State Government in reaching its decision about "NOC" will act only on the material available to it before issuing suspension order or before passing of order dated 1.3.2005; and will not collect material while deciding upon the matter of continued operation of NOC issued in favour of the petitioners. In the absence of any such direction to decide the pending issue about the suspension of NOC by the State Government within stipulated period, one cannot consider it to be an disobedience, much less willful disobedience of the order dated 1.3.2005, if the State Government has taken into consideration the material which come to the notice of the State Government before passing the final order. The direction that Nursing Council shall submit its report to State Government within one month of the order of High Court, allowed bringing on record the new material which was not before the Authority Grant of one month to submit the report and three months time thereafter to decide the pending issue itself suggest that further enquiry into fact by the Authority was not rules out. (27). In fact, reading this part of the order under appeal about collecting fresh evidence to be contrary to the directions contained in order dated 1.3.2005 is itself expanding scope of order dated 1.3.2005, disobedience of which has been complained. It is not the jurisdiction of the Court to expand, verify or modify the directions issued by the Court, non-compliance of which has been complained. The complaint of non-compliance against the direction has to be adjudged strictly in the light of the directions issued nothing more. (28). It is not the jurisdiction of the Court to expand, verify or modify the directions issued by the Court, non-compliance of which has been complained. The complaint of non-compliance against the direction has to be adjudged strictly in the light of the directions issued nothing more. (28). In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that after the order dated 12.1.2006 was passed, there was no occasion for this Court to have examined he merit of that order by holding further enquiry or calling upon the respondent State to explain why and in what circumstances, the order dated 12.1.2006 has been passed. It is well settled since the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji - AIR (39) 1952 SC page 16 that any order be it by administrative authority or the quasi judicial authority speaks for itself and it has to be read as it is. The authorities itself had no jurisdiction to add or subtract in that order. Whatever the impact of the order dated 1.3.2005 is, it had to be examined in that light and there was no occasion for the Court to examine the validity of the order dated 12.1.2006 and to test it on the basis of subsequent directions issued by the Court in the contempt petition to see that order is brought in accordance with the provisions of law as is considered to be the law of the Court. (29). We are afraid that this is not the scope of the enquiry in contempt petition. If the directions were not issued restricting the respondent State to consider the pending matter in the light of available material, collection and use of additional material before passing the order cannot be held to be in violation of the directions of the Court dated 1.3.2005. Similarly reference in the judgment under appeal to the subsequent proceedings in the contempt petition directing to examine the validity of the order dated 12.1.2006 was beyond the scope of enquiry into question of disobedience of order dated 1.3.2005 which direction alone was relevant for consideration whether the respondents in the contempt were guilty of willful disobedience of the order of the Court. (30). The learned counsel for the respondents was at pains to take us through the proceedings of the contempt petition in this regard. (30). The learned counsel for the respondents was at pains to take us through the proceedings of the contempt petition in this regard. All the referred proceedings were subsequent to passing of the order dated 12.1.2006 to urge that respondents have further acted in defiance of the directives of this Court in not revoking or reviewing the order dated 12.1.2006. We have not permitted the learned counsel for the respondents to adopt this course as in our opinion this exercise of examining the validity of the order dated 12.1.2006 on the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the respondent was wholly beyond jurisdiction of the enquiry required of this Court while exercising jurisdiction to punish the respondent for alleged willful disobedience of the Court. What the learned counsel for the respondent was attempting to argue was that the order dated 12.1.2006 on its own merit was an erroneous order. For such exercise, he could have chosen remedy as was available to him for challenging order dated 12.1.2006 and that would have been appropriate proceedings where the Court could have examined the merit of the order and passed appropriate orders to sustain or upset the order dated 12.1.2006. But the merit of said order cannot be examined in these proceedings merely because the order dated 12.1.2006 appears to be not in accordance with the law or erroneous. (31). Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the respondents on the expression "to decide the pending matters strictly in accordance with law." We are afraid that this direction cannot be read in a way to convert the jurisdiction of this Court to punish the appellants for willful disobedience of Court as a vehicle examining the orders passed by the State authorities within their domain on merit. When such decision has been left to be taken by the State Government under the order dated 1.3.2005 violation of which has been complained. The only direction in order dated 1.3.2005 was to the respondents in writ petition to pass final order or take decision on pending matter about suspension of NOC. This implied a necessary enquiry into the requisite for revoking suspension order or passing an order for cancelling NOC. This decision making process was left to the State by order dated 1.3.2005 itself. This implied a necessary enquiry into the requisite for revoking suspension order or passing an order for cancelling NOC. This decision making process was left to the State by order dated 1.3.2005 itself. Hence, an order passed in pursuance of direction contained in order dated 1.3.2005, according to appellants own submission, decision making authority cannot be considered a violation or disobedience of order of High Court dated 1.3.2005. In fact, on passing the order dated 12.1.2006, the direction contained in order dated 1.3.2005 stood complied with and nothing more remained to be done by appellants after passing order dated 12.1.2006. (32). Really speaking the only direction which the order dated 1.3.205 contained was to take decision on pending matter within time frame fixed by Court. (33). Even without such direction also the State authorities are under obligation to discharge, in whatever field they are required to take decision, in accordance with law. It does not impact that because the Court has given directions to decide the pending matters strictly in accordance with law the examination of the merit of the orders passed by such authorities within their jurisdiction amounts to contempt if they pass an order which in the opinion of the Court is erroneous. The contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for that purpose. (34). In view thereof, we are clearly of the opinion that finding recorded against the two Secretaries of the State namely G.S. Sandhu and Sudhir Bhargava about committing disobedience of the orders of this Court in passing the order dated 12.1.2006 is unsustainable. (35). As we read the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.3.2005, the only direction was to decide the pending matters about the suspension of NOC issued in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law within the stipulated time. The two tier time frame was fixed. First time frame was for Indian Nursing Council within which it had to submit its report, that is to say within one month of the date of order. Second tier of time frame was within which the State Government was to decide after furnishing of the reports by Indian Nursing Council. (36). The two tier time frame was fixed. First time frame was for Indian Nursing Council within which it had to submit its report, that is to say within one month of the date of order. Second tier of time frame was within which the State Government was to decide after furnishing of the reports by Indian Nursing Council. (36). The present appellants, the respondents in the contempt petition, have taken a specific plea that in terms of the directions contained in order dated 1.3.2005, the Indian Nursing Council has not submitted its report and, therefore, they may not be held guilty of flouting the time schedule fixed for deciding the matter pending before it. (37). The learned counsel for the respondents have stated that in view of the reference to letter dated 2.6.2005, it must be held that the Indian Nursing Council had submitted its report and the two appellants have deliberately not acted on the information received by them from the Indian Nursing Council and as they were not required to submit the details of report on which their conclusion or result of their inspection and the examination was based. (38). From the careful reading of the letter dated 2.6.2005 which has been referred to in the order dated 12.1.2006 it is difficult to consider that it conveyed the report of the inspection carried on by the council has been submitted to the State Government. What is conveyed was its conclusion about the eligibility of the petitioners institution for opening Nursing Course but conveying the conclusion is one thing and conveying the report is another thing. The submission of the report means the entire material on the basis of which the ultimate conclusion by the council is made is to be conveyed to the State Government, enabling the State Government to act objectively on the basis of that report. (39). The submission of the report means the entire material on the basis of which the ultimate conclusion by the council is made is to be conveyed to the State Government, enabling the State Government to act objectively on the basis of that report. (39). In fact, the entire endeavour of the learned counsel for the petitioner had been to suggest, as has been before the learned Single Judge and accepted as per the order of learned Single Judge, that the State Government was bound to act in accordance with recommendations made by the Indian Nursing Council and by not accepting it, they have acted contrary to law and by acting contrary to law, they have committed a willful disobedience of the order of the Court dated 1.3.2005 in not revoking the order of suspension but ultimately converting the same into an order of cancellation of the NOC. (40). However, in the letter dated 2.6.2005 we do not find any material from which we can infer that such report in its fullness has ever been submitted to the State Government. On the contrary,the letter merely states that "because of the interim order passed by this Court and pendency of the writ petition filed by the respondent the submission of report has been withheld by the council." This only conveys that at least until writing that letter report of Indian Nursing Council has not been submitted to State Government. In that letter, it has not even been stated that the said report is being now submitted. In absence of any specific averment either by the council or by the applicant, if the respondents have taken the plea that they have not received report from the Indian Nursing Council as directed by the Court, it cannot be said to be wholly without basis so as to draw adverse inference against the alleged contemnors. (41). That being the position, the time frame fixed by the Court itself cannot be said to have commenced against the respondents for taking decision within 3 months from the date of receipt of the report from the Indian Nursing Council, Even if there is any doubt,the contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature the benefit must go to the accused and not to the applicant. (42). Moreover the proceedings of contempt are primarily to vindicate the dignity of Court and supremacy of rule of law. (42). Moreover the proceedings of contempt are primarily to vindicate the dignity of Court and supremacy of rule of law. It cannot be a tool of satisfying any partys vengeance a substitute for adjudication of a matter about which a party may have grievance and he desires to seek relief against such action. Hence, when in the aforesaid circumstances, the order was passed by State on 12.1.2006 and directions of Court were complied with the contempt proceedings should have been brought to an end. (43). In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no case is made out by the applicant that the respondent G.S. Sandhu, who had passed the order dated 12.1.2006 had committed any willful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed on 1.3.2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3969/2002 and consequently, Shri Sudhir Bhargava, who has succeeded him as Secretary after reply was submitted and has been substituted as respondent in place of Shri Sandhu and has dealt with the proceedings subsequent thereto also cannot be held to have acted in defiance of order dated 1.3.2005. (44). We may reiterate that we have not concerned ourselves with the validity or legality of the order dated 12.1.2006 which is not within the province of these proceedings. The direction of the Court to decide the pending matters of suspension of NOC came to be fully complied with by the respondents when the order dated 12.1.2006 came to be made. It was only for the aggrieved party to challenge the order dated 12.1.2006 in appropriate proceedings if one so chose to do so. It is further to be noticed that notwithstanding the finding of the learned Single Judge that the order dated 12.1.2006 was in defiance of direction contained in order dated 1.3.2005 yet in judgment under appeal the order dated 12.1.2006 had not been set aside or quashed. In other words, the petitioner still had to challenge the order dated 12.1.2006 on merit, independently if he wants to get any relief against the cancellation of its NOC. If the findings about validity of order dated 12.1.2006, which has come in existence after direction to pass an order in accordance with law, could be reached in these proceedings, separate proceedings will be a futile exercise. If the findings about validity of order dated 12.1.2006, which has come in existence after direction to pass an order in accordance with law, could be reached in these proceedings, separate proceedings will be a futile exercise. This fortifies the ultimate conclusion to which we have reached that the vehicle of contempt petition cannot be used for the purpose of examining the impugned order on merit and getting any relief in respect thereof. Once the order has been passed, we are further of the opinion that the contempt petition should have ended on that and it should not have carried to the ultimate conclusion reached by holding enquiry into the merit and to pronounce upon the validity of the order dated 12.1.2006 on various grounds including inclusion of the material collected thereafter merely because in defiance to the direction of the Court the respondents have offered to reconsider the matter in the light of observations of this Court. The observations of the Court had really resulted in expansion of order dated 1.3.2005 by making certain directions about deciding the pending matter in particular manner by adopting a particular procedure. That being not the part of the order no amount of subsequent direction or modification or clarification to extend the scope of the order can bring the order dated 12.1.2006 within the ambit of civil contempt of order dated 1.3.2005. (45). In this connection, we may refer the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Director of Education, Uttaranchal & Ors. vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and others (2005) 6 SCC 98 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment of 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. 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." The Court further went on observing that:- "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 given additional directions 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." (46). As a result of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The conviction and punishment awarded to the appellants are set aside and contempt proceedings against the respondent G.S. Sandhu and Sudhir Bhargava are discharged. However, it is without prejudice to the petitioners legitimate rights to seek his remedy in respect of order dated 12.1.2006 in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made by the learned Single Judge in order under appeal before appropriate forum. When such recourse is taken, the same shall be considered. The bail bonds and surety bonds submitted by the appellants are discharged. (47). No costs.