Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 31 (MP)

State Of M. P. v. Virendra Singh Parihar

2012-01-09

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) SHRI M. P. S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General, for appellants. SHRI Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Heard. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 4-11-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Contempt Petition No. 203/2010. ( 2. ) LEARNED Single Judge has observed in the order under appeal that how State Government be not categorized as compulsive litigant and ordered issuance of notice against Principal Secretary of Law and Legislative Affairs and Principal Secretary, GAD. ( 3. ) THE main grievance of the appellants is that under contempt jurisdiction the learned Single Judge has no power and authority to pass such order. ( 4. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 2585/2006. The Writ Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :- "Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reflect the name of the petitioner in the gradation list of LDC. It is needless to mention that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the placement in the gradation list of LDC, he shall be at liberty to prefer a representation against his placement in the gradation list. The aforesaid exercise of including the name of petitioner in the gradation list of LDC's shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of." ( 5. ) AGAINST the aforesaid order a writ appeal was filed, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the State filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court on 15-11-2011 which was registered as SLP (Civil) No. 36153/2011. ( 6. ) WHEN the order has not been complied with a contempt petition was filed. In the aforesaid contempt petition learned Single Judge has passed order on 4-11-2011. In the aforesaid order it has been observed that the State be not categorized as compulsive litigant in view of the State Litigation Policy. The State framed a policy named as 'State Litigation Policy - 2011'. One of the object of the policy is to ensure that the Government is to transform Government from compulsive litigant to a responsible litigant. It has further been mentioned in the aforesaid policy that appeals will not be filed in the Supreme Court unless some important question of law is involved. One of the object of the policy is to ensure that the Government is to transform Government from compulsive litigant to a responsible litigant. It has further been mentioned in the aforesaid policy that appeals will not be filed in the Supreme Court unless some important question of law is involved. ( 7. ) THE Contempt of Court Act prescribes jurisdiction to the Court and gives power to take action if there is disobedience of the order of the Court. ( 8. ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Finance Service House Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and others, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 339 , has held, as under in regard to the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Court:- "While exercising contempt jurisdiction the Supreme Court does not intend to reopen the issues which could have been raised in original proceeding nor shall it embark upon other questions including the plea of equities which could fall for consideration only in original proceedings. THE Court is not concerned as to whether the original order was right or wrong. THE Court must not take a different view or traverse beyond the same. It cannot ordinarily give an additional direction or delete a direction issued. It will not do anything which would amount to exercise of its review jurisdiction." THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others vs. Rajendra Singh and another, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 688, has further held as under:- "6. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with 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 give additional direction or delete any direction. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with 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 give additional direction 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." Learned Single Judge has issued the following directions vide order dated 4-11-2011 :- "Though, this Court cannot deny the right of the petitioner to approach the Apex Court but bare reading of the facts and circumstances appearing in the case, it appears that this is a glaring example of the Government becoming a compulsive litigant which has been criticized in its own State Litigation Policy, 2007 annexed along with affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary of Law and Legislative Affairs and GAD. THE said officers are further directed to assign reasons as to how this case does not categorize the State Government as a compulsive litigant within a period of 15 days. THE respondents are further directed to inform about fate of SLP on the next date of hearing. Since the Principal Secretary of Law and Legislative Affairs and Principal Secretary GAD are not parties. Registry is directed to communicate this order to both the Officers. List the case on 25-11-2011." ( 9. ) IN our opinion, the aforesaid direction and decision of the learned Single Judge to exercise jurisdiction in regard to decide a lis that whether the State Government be categorized as compulsive litigant or not is beyond power of the Court under the contempt jurisdiction. Hence, the aforesaid action is without jurisdiction. ( 10. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge in this regard and issuance of notice to the Principal Secretary of Law and Legislative Affairs and Principal Secretary, GAD are hereby quashed. It is hereby clarified that the learned Single Judge is at liberty to take appropriate steps in regard to compliance of the order passed by the Writ Court. Appeal allowed.