Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 24 (UTT)

Gopal Singh Bisht v. Vinod Kumar Suman

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 respondents no. 1 and 2 is condoned. Response affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2 are taken on record. 2. CLMA No. 257 of 2015 and CLMA No. 316 of 2015 stand disposed of accordingly. 3. Present contempt applicant is moved for the deliberate violation of interim order dated 22.10.2013 passed by Writ Court in WPSS No. 1644 of 2013. 4. Order dated 22.10.2013 reads as under:- “Mr. H.C. Lohani, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1, 4, 5 and 6. Mrs. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. List after six weeks alongwith Writ Petition (S/S) No. 861 of 2013. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also going through the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is directed that till the next date of listing, no recovery shall be made in pursuance of order dated 25.09.2013”. 5. Mr. A.D. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the contempt applicant fairly submits that after passing of interim order dated 22.10.2013, no recovery was ever effected. He, however, submits that illegal recovery was made pursuant to the impugned order dated 25.09.2013 prior to the passing of the interim order dated 22.10.2013. 6. While exercising jurisdiction under contempt of Court Act, this Court neither can omit nor can add any direction in the orders passed by the Writ Court. The jurisdiction of the contempt court is limited to the extent, as to whether there is willful non-compliance or violation of the orders passed by the Writ Court. 7. As to whether any recovery made pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2013 prior to order dated 22.10.2013 was illegal cannot be gone into while exercising contempt jurisdiction and question of the legality of the recovery can only be seen by the Writ Court hearing the writ petition challenging the recovery order dated 25.09.2013. 8. 7. As to whether any recovery made pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2013 prior to order dated 22.10.2013 was illegal cannot be gone into while exercising contempt jurisdiction and question of the legality of the recovery can only be seen by the Writ Court hearing the writ petition challenging the recovery order dated 25.09.2013. 8. There is another aspect of the matter that contempt court has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue direction to pay the amount already recovered prior to the interim stay order granted by the Writ Court, such direction too may be issued only by the writ court and not by the Contempt Court. 9. Consequently, contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner/contempt applicant, if so advised, may approach the Writ Court hearing the Writ Petition No. 1644 of 2013 (S/S) seeking direction to refund the amount already recovered prior to the passing of interim order.