Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1858 (RAJ)

Dharmendra Kumar v. Nishkam Diwakar

2011-08-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—These two contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Contempt Courts Act for willful disobedience of judgment dated 23.8.2011 passed by Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 78 of 2011 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2175 of 201 and S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 79 of 2011 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2176/2011. Along with the contempt petitions applications for seeking leave to file contempt petitions were also filed by the petitioners in both the contempt petitions. 2. Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Nisha Sharma and Kshama Awasthi, has submitted that the petitioners participated in Pre-Teachers Entrance Test - 2010. Both the petitioners secured suitable merit and as per their merit both the petitioners were allotted Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur. At the relevant time the aforesaid college was holding recognition by the NCTE. The petitioners pursued their studies and training at Laxmibai Teachers Training College. The University of Rajasthan refused to extend provisional affiliation earlier granted to Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College vide their communication dated 9.2.2011. Laxmi Bai Teachers Training college filed Writ Petition No. 2176/2011 before this Court against the order dated 9.2.2011. The said writ petitions was disposed by this Court on 27.4.2011. This court in the order dated 27.4.2011 observed that the students of Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jaipur shall stand transfer to some other colleges. The Coordinator PTET 2000 Jainarain University Jodhpur issued letter dated 6.5.2011 to both the petitioners informing them to report to Shri Agrasen Mahila T.T. College, Near Kanak Palace Hotel, Bharatpur Road, Mahuwa, Dausa. The petitioners were required to join between 6.5.2011 to 9.5.2011. Meanwhile Laxmi Bai teachers Training College filed Review Petition No. 79/2011, wherein this Court granted interim order on 9.5.2011 to the effect that the students of Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur shall not be transferred to any other College. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners came to be transferred to Shri Agrasen Mahila T.T. College Mahuwa, Dausa and they reported in the said college on 9.5.2011. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners came to be transferred to Shri Agrasen Mahila T.T. College Mahuwa, Dausa and they reported in the said college on 9.5.2011. However, after the aforesaid order of this Court dated 9.5.2011 in the review petition the petitioners were advised to continue their studies and training in Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, accordingly the petitioners continued to pursue their studies and training in Laxmi Bai Teachers College. They have also deposited the prescribed examination fee with the Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College and were waiting for the examination. In other Teachers Training Colleges, examination forms have been sent by the Coordinator, but such forms were not sent to the Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, on the contrary the petitioners were given to understand that they would not be allowed to appear in B.Ed. Examination. As per the Schedule Final Examination of B.Ed. were scheduled from 24.8.2011 onwards. The petitioners submitted application for impleadment in the aforesaid review petition. the application submitted by the petitioners was heard along with the review petition on23.8.2011 and this Court observed in the order that the University was not permitting the students, who had been studying in the Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jaipur to appear in the examination. This court observed that if the students are eligible to appear in the examination, the respondent University must permit them to do so. While parting with the order this Court constrained to observed that "it appears from the camour emerging from both the sides that the respondent University is adamant not to permit the students to appear in the examination and they have made it to be their prestigious issue. The Court expects that the University should discharge its function honestly, fairly, impartially and sans and bias, in accordance with the provisions of law and should not embrace it to be personal nor should make it a prestigious issue. The petitioners filed this contempt petition on 25.8.2011 and the examinations have already been commenced from 24.8.2011. Mr. The Court expects that the University should discharge its function honestly, fairly, impartially and sans and bias, in accordance with the provisions of law and should not embrace it to be personal nor should make it a prestigious issue. The petitioners filed this contempt petition on 25.8.2011 and the examinations have already been commenced from 24.8.2011. Mr. Madhav Mitra, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by not allowing the petitioners to take examination despite clear cut and unambiguous directions given by this Court, comes within the purview of contempt as defined under the provisions of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and all the contemnors are liable to be punished for flouting the order dated 23.8.2011 passed by this Court. The conduct of the contemnors falls within the purview of contempt as defined under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are also liable to be punished adequately for committing contempt of the Courts order. 3. Mr. Mohit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has almost supported the arguments raised by the counsel for the other petitioners in the contempt petition. The name of the College in which the petitioners are studying is Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College, Basedi, District Dholpur. The petitioners were transferred to join new allotted college by 5.00 p.m. on 9.5.2011 but since the interim order was passed by this Court so the petitioners could not join their new allotted college. It has been submitted by the counsel that the petitioners have been made to run from pillar to post without there being any fault on their part. The petitioners moved application for being impleaded as party respondent along with the application for interim relief in the review petition. The review petitions were disposed without there being any order on the applications of the petitioners. The petitioners have deposited the examination fees and the examination form to the University of Rajasthan. The examination for the B.Ed. Programme for the Session 2010-11 had already commenced from 24.8.2011 and despite being eligible in all respects the respondent only on account of some personal issue has not permitted the petitioners to appear in the first exam. This contempt petition was also presented on 25.8.2011. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the counsel and have also gone through the documents submitted by the petitioners. 5. This contempt petition was also presented on 25.8.2011. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the counsel and have also gone through the documents submitted by the petitioners. 5. In the contempt petition No. 818 of 2011 following prayer was made : "It is therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed from this Hon'ble Court that this petition may please be allowed and respondents be directed to implement judgment dated 23.8.2011 in true spirit and allow students to appear in B.Ed. Examination for the Session 2010-11 and further direct the University to conduct re-examination of the papers where students were not permitted to appear on account of inaction of respondents. Respondents be punished severally under Contempt of Courts Act. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 6. In contempt petition No. 819 of 2011 following prayer was made : "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this contempt petition and the cognizance may kindly be taken against the respondents/contemnors for committing contempt of order dated 23.8.2011 in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 79/2011 and they may also suitably be punished and direction may kindly be given to make compliance of aforesaid order dated 23.8.2011 of the Hon'ble Court by allowing the petitioners to appear in rest of the papers of B.Ed. Examination 2011 Scheduled from 27.8.2011 onwards. Any other order of relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner, may also be passed. 7. It is clear from the prayers made in the contempt petitions that both these contempt petitions have been filed for the compliance of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions and the review petitions filed by Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College, Basedi District Dholpur and Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jamuwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur. 8. In the writ petition No. 2176/2011 which was filed by Laxmi Bai Teacher Training College, this Court vide order dated April 27, 2011, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. This Court passed the following order : "The Court vide order dated 1st March, 2011 directed the N.C.T.E. to inspect the premises of the Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College, Basedi District Dholpur and Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jaipur and submit their report. This Court passed the following order : "The Court vide order dated 1st March, 2011 directed the N.C.T.E. to inspect the premises of the Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College, Basedi District Dholpur and Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jaipur and submit their report. N.C.T.E., having made the inspection of the premises submitted the report, which is on record. This Court vide order dated 1st March, 2011 recorded that if the report came favourable, the students would be maintained by the petitioners- colleges and if it went against the colleges concerned, there would be no impediment on transfer of the students, N.C.T.E. is found to have given a report not favouring the petitioners- colleges, hence, pursuant to the order dated 1st March 2011, in view of the report of the N.C.T.E., the students of Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College, Basedi, Dholpur and Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jaipur shall stand transferred to some other colleges. In the above back-drop, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file afresh, if any other cause of action arises in this matter. Permission is granted. The writ petition No. 2176/2011 stands dismissed as withdrawn." 9. The petitioners Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jamuwa Ramgarh in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2176/2011 and petitioner Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College, Basedi, District Dholpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2175/2011, filed review petitions in both the writ petitions for reviewing the order of this Court dated April 27, 2011 passed by this Court in the writ petitions. 10. It may be mentioned that the petitioners in both these contempt petitions were not parties to the writ petition filed by Laxmi Bai Teachers Training college, Jamuwa Ramgarh or in the writ petition filed by Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College. 11. It is stated in both the contempt petitions by the petitioners that they have filed applications in both the review petitions to be impleaded them as parties to the review petitions. This court has not passed any orders on the applications filed by the petitioners. The review petitions filed by the petitioner Laxmi Bai teachers Training College, Jamuwa Ramgarh and the petitioner Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College, were rejected by making certain observations by this Court vide order dated August 23, 2011. 12. This court has not passed any orders on the applications filed by the petitioners. The review petitions filed by the petitioner Laxmi Bai teachers Training College, Jamuwa Ramgarh and the petitioner Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College, were rejected by making certain observations by this Court vide order dated August 23, 2011. 12. At this stage, it is necessary to have a look at the provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 12 the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as under : 10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts.—Every High court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts, subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself : Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). 11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction.—A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits. 12. Punishment of contempt of Court.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both : Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced with the leave of the Court, by the detention in civil person of each such person : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer. Explanation.—For the purpose of sub-section (4) and (5),– (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 215. Explanation.—For the purpose of sub-section (4) and (5),– (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 215. High Courts to be courts of record.—Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself." 13. It is true that the High Court has powers to punish the persons flouting the orders of the High Court. The petitioners in these two contempt petitions were not allowed to intervene or to be impleaded as parties in the review petitions, in which they have filed applications for impleading them as parties to the review petitions. In the contempt petitions the main prayer of the petitioners is that the respondents be directed to implement judgment dated 23.8.2011 in true spirit. In the garb of contempt petitions, the petitioners who were not parties to the writ petition or review petitions, are praying for implementing the observations made by this Court in the review petitions filed by Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College and Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent University to allow them to sit in the examinations. In my view by way of contempt petitions the petitioners cannot be permitted to sit in the examinations. It is stated by the petitioners in contempt petition No. 819/2011 in para 8 that : "Vide letters dated 5.5.2011 the petitioners came to be transferred to Shri Agrasen Mahila T.T. College, Mahuwa, Dausa therefore, they reported in the said college on 9.5.2011, however, after the aforesaid order dated 9.5.2011, passed by the Hon'ble Court in the Review Petition the petitioners were advised to continue their studies and training in Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur itself and accordingly, the petitioners continued to persuade their studies and training in Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College." 14. Thus it is clear that the petitioners once complied with the orders of the Coordinator Jai Narayana Vyas University Jodhpur, again started studying in Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College. 15 . Thus it is clear that the petitioners once complied with the orders of the Coordinator Jai Narayana Vyas University Jodhpur, again started studying in Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College. 15 . In Contempt Petition No. 818/2011, the petitioners in para No.9 stated thus : "That in accordance of the transfer order of students to some other colleges, the concerned students were required to join the new allotted college by 5.00 p.m. on 9.5.2011. Since the interim order was passed by this Hon'ble Court so petitioners could not join their new allotted college." 16. It appears from the pleadings of the petitioners in the contempt petition that they are suppressing facts about passing of the order by the Coordinator and whether they have joined the new College as assigned by the Coordinator or not is not mentioned in the contempt petition filed by them. 17. The pleadings as mentioned in the contempt petitions simply state that the petitioners are praying for implementation o the observations made by this Court in the review petitions of the Colleges in which they are studying. It is an admitted fact that the Coordinator of the Jain Naraian Vyas University passed the order transferring the petitioners to some other college. The students in Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College complied with the orders of the Coordinator but again joined back in Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College the garb of the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by this Court in the review petition filed by Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jamuwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur. The petitioners in the contempt petition No. 818/2011 have not complied with the orders of the Coordinator Jai Narayan Vyas University Jodhpur and simply stated that they are continuing in Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College in view of the interim order passed 9.5.2011 passed by this Court in the review petition of the College. The cause of action raised in the contempt petitions is not related to the writ petitions or review petitions filed by Mahrana Pratap Teachers Training College or Laxmi Bai Teachers College, wherein the petitioners were not parties to the petitions. The petitioners in these two contempt petitions are pursuing their studies in Mahrana Pratap Teachers Training College and Laxmi Bai Teachers College. The examinations in B.Ed. The petitioners in these two contempt petitions are pursuing their studies in Mahrana Pratap Teachers Training College and Laxmi Bai Teachers College. The examinations in B.Ed. Course have already been commenced and the petitioners could not appear in one or two subjects and at this stage now it is not possible for this Court to pass any orders in the contempt petitions for allowing them to appear in the B.Ed. Examinations. The applications for leave to file contempt petitions or the contempt petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable. This Court passed the orders in the review petitions on 23.8.2011 and the examinations already commenced from 24.8.2011 and they have filed the contempt petitions on 25.8.2011. 18. With these observations, the contempt petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable and hence stand dismissed. The applications for leave no appeal filed by the petitioners also stand dismissed. However, the petitioners are free to avail the appropriate remedy for redressal of their grievances, if they are advised to do so.