Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 927 (PAT)

Subodh Jha v. State of Bihar

2018-06-25

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

body2018
Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.S.Sundram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-8. 3. Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-6 the order passed by the Division Bench in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction in MJC No. 1205 of 2006. 4. Mr. Mishra firstly submits that once the Division Bench in contempt proceeding has accepted show cause holding that there appears to be sufficient compliance of this court order , the statutory authority is precluded from entering into the merit of the case and deciding the lis vide (Annexure-8.) He next contended that there is public policy as to the finality of the litigation. The present litigation culminated by dropping the contempt proceeding in MJC No. 1205 of 2006 vide order dated 1.6.2006 has to be taken as final decision between the parties and after acceptance of the show cause, no statutory authority is competent to examine once again the issue which was set at rest after acceptance of the show cause as substantive compliance. 5. From the order contained in Annexure-8, it appears that the authority has noted the fact that the order contained in (Annexure-3) was not considered by the Board while passing the order. Annexure-8 has noted that in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 2220 of 1989 the Board was required to examine the case objectively and not to complete the empty formality. 6. From the proceeding of the Board dated 24.04.2007 it would be evident that while considering the case in terms of judgment of the Writ court in CWJC No. 2220 of 1989 the Board has not heard the parties. 6. From the proceeding of the Board dated 24.04.2007 it would be evident that while considering the case in terms of judgment of the Writ court in CWJC No. 2220 of 1989 the Board has not heard the parties. The relevant part of the consideration of the Board reads as follows: – ^^Á'uxr vihy dk fu"iknu djrs gq, vihyh; inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk cksMZ ds vkns'k Kkikad&1130 fnukad 08-06-2005 dks jnn~ djrs gq, mDr vkns’k ds iwoZ dh fLFkfr cgky fd;k x;k gS rFkk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ dks vkns'k fn;k x;k gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ;kfpdk la[;k&lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ 2220@89 esa fnukad 29-10-2000 dks ikfjr U;k;kns'kksa ds vkyksd esa lHkh i{kksa dks iw.kZ:is.k lquokbZ fu;ekuqlkj dj ,d rF; ijd vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;A Á'uxr vkns'k dh xgu leh{kk dh x;h cksMZ ds lfpo us ;g crk;k fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa bl laca/k esa ,d voekuuk okn fopkjk/khu gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ;kfpdk la[;k lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ 2220@89 esa ikfjr U;k;kns'k fnukad 29-10-2010 ,oa cksMZ ds vkns'k Kkikad&1130 fnukad 08-06-2005 ,oa vihyh; inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk vihy la[;k 13@05 esa ikfjr vkns'kksa dh xgu leh{kk dh x;h leh{kksijkUr ;g ik;k x;k fd cksMZ ds v/;{k ds }kjk Kkikad la[;k&1130 fnukad 08-06-2005 ds lac) i{kksa dks lquus ds i'pkr ikfjr fd;k Fkk fdUrq cksMZ dh lgefr ÁkIr ugha dh x;h Fkh tcfd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius U;k;kns'k fnukad 29-10-2000 ds }kjk bl ij fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ dks fu.kZ; ysus dk funsZ'k fn;k Fkk cksMZ ds }kjk fu.kZ; ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k mDr vkns'k dks jnn~ dj cksMZ ds le{k fu.kZ; ysus gsrq vihyh; inkf/kdkjh us fjek.M dj fn;k gSA xgu leh{kksikUr cksMZ bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprh gS fd cksMZ ds rRdkyhu v/;{k dk vkns'k Kkiu&1130 fnukad 08-06-2005 rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA vr,oa fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ rRdkyhu v/;{k ds }kjk ikfjr Kkikad&1130 fnukad 08-06-2005 dks vuqeksfnr djrh gSA vUr esa v/;{k ds /kU;okn Kkiu ds ckn cksMZ dh cSBd dh lekfIr dh ?kks"k.kk dh x;hA** 6A. In view of the above, the court is unable to accept the submission of Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to the contrary the court finds that there was no infirmity in the decision Spl. Director, Secondary Education and he has committed no illegality in interfering with the order passed by the Board. 7. In view of the above, the court is unable to accept the submission of Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to the contrary the court finds that there was no infirmity in the decision Spl. Director, Secondary Education and he has committed no illegality in interfering with the order passed by the Board. 7. Undisputedly, the order passed by the Board is without hearing of the parties, such order cannot become final only on account of fact that in contempt proceeding show cause was accepted by this court as substantive compliance. The law in this connection is well settled that contempt is a matter between the court and the contemnor. 8. Reference in this regard may be made in the case of Rohtas Singh vs. Commissioner, Agra Division & Ors. SC reported in (1998)1 SCC 349 . Time and again the Apex Court has held out that in contempt proceeding the court can only examine the compliance of the direction issued by the writ court and cannot issue fresh direction and cannot adjudicate the merit of the case. The scope of contempt proceeding is very limited and accepting show cause as substantive compliance does not debar the statutory authority to enter into the merit of the case and as such the court is not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Yougendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that after show cause was accepted by the Divsion Bench of this court in contempt proceeding the statutory authority exercising power of appeal is precluded from passing order and entering into the merit of the case. 9. During the course of argument, Mr. Mishra has not been able to find fault with the decision of the Special Director, on merit except that he maintained his stand that after show cause was accepted in contempt proceeding the Special Director, Secondary Education has no jurisdiction to enter into the merit of the case. The other submission of Mr. Mishra is with reference to public policy as to the finality of the decision, the court is not persuaded to accept the submission as contempt proceeding was not culminating point to hold that finality in the litigation reached by accepting show cause. 10. In the totality of facts situation, the court does not find any fault in the decision of the Special Director, Secondary Education dated 21.9.2010. 10. In the totality of facts situation, the court does not find any fault in the decision of the Special Director, Secondary Education dated 21.9.2010. 11. The court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.