Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 23 (UTT)

Sarita v. M. C. Joshi

2015-01-12

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the response affidavits on behalf of respondent/OP, is condoned. Response affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. 2. CLMA No. 253 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. 3. Present contempt application is filed by the writ petitioner/contempt applicant stating therein that Writ Court, vide order dated 23.09.2014, passed in WPSS No. 1515 of 2014, Smt. Sarita vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, was pleased to quash the transfer order dated 13.06.2013 and was further pleased to direct the petitioner/contempt applicant to move fresh representation to the Secretary, Secondary Education, Dehradun with further direction to Secretary, Secondary Education, Dehradun to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and to explore all possibilities for transferring the petitioner to Kumaon Division or at the nearby place where the husband of the petitioner is working. 4. Mr. Jitendra Chaudary, learned counsel for the petitioner/contempt applicant has vehemently argued that although prior to the filing of the contempt application, no decision was taken by the authorities/OPs on the representation of the petitioner seeking transfer at the place where the husband of the petitioner was working in compliance of judgment dated 23.09.2014, however, fact remains that representation of the petitioner was dismissed by OP No. 1 vide order dated 3rd January, 2015, copy thereof is placed on record as annexure no. 1 to the response affidavit. 5. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner/contempt applicant further contends that vide order dated 3rd January, 2015, the representation of the petitioner was rejected, however, it does not reflect as to why the petitioner could not be adjusted at the place of posting of her husband or in Kumaon Division as directed by Writ Court vide judgment dated 23.09.2014. Therefore, OP is guilty of committing the contempt of Court. 6. It is settled position of law that jurisdiction of Contempt Court is limited. Contempt Court can only see as to whether there is willful non-compliance or violation of the order/judgment passed by the Writ Court. Jurisdiction of the Contempt Court is akin to the jurisdiction of the Executing Court and Contempt Court shall ensure the enforcement of the order of the Writ Court. This is also settled position of law that Executing Court or Contempt Court cannot go behind the order/judgment non-compliance of which is reported. Jurisdiction of the Contempt Court is akin to the jurisdiction of the Executing Court and Contempt Court shall ensure the enforcement of the order of the Writ Court. This is also settled position of law that Executing Court or Contempt Court cannot go behind the order/judgment non-compliance of which is reported. Contempt Court or Executing Court is not competent to omit or add anything in the orders passed by the Court non-compliance of which is reported or execution whereof is sought. 7. A bare perusal of the paragraph 3 of the judgment dated 23.09.2014 passed by Writ Court in WPSS no. 1515 of 2014 would reveal that Writ Court was pleased to direct the Secretary, Secondary Education Dehradun to decide the representation of the writ petitioner/contempt applicant in accordance with law and to explore all possibilities to accommodate her either at the place of posting of her husband or at least in Kumaon Division. 8. There seems to be no clear direction that petitioner has to be transferred at the place of posting of her husband or nearby place in Kumaon Division. Therefore, this Court cannot read something which is missing in the order. If petitioner is not satisfied with the rejection of her representation, petitioner/contempt applicant shall always be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. 9. In view of the above, contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed.