Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 800 (MP)

Mukund Bihari Bose v. Rakesh Singh

2020-08-13

VISHAL DHAGAT

body2020
JUDGMENT Vishal Dhagat, J. - Petitioner has filed this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of Constitution of India. 2. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is non-compliance of order dated 17.10.2014 passed in W.P. No.15879/2014. Said writ petition was disposed off with a direction to Collector, Betul to consider petitioner's representation Annexure P/1 and take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months, from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Petitioner on 05.12.2014 has submitted an application for compliance of direction given by this Court in order dated 17.10.2014. It is submitted that no final order has been passed by the authorities to implement the order passed by this Court. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that respondents have committed contempt of this Court by non-compliance of order dated 17.10.2014 and made a prayer to issue notices of contempt to respondents. 3. Petitioner has filed this contempt petition on 29.06.2020. Contempt petition has been preferred before this Court after a period of about 6 years. Counsel for the petitioner was asked whether the contempt case filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation and, therefore, notices may not be issued? 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court reported in Pritam Pal vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, (1992) AIR SC 904 . In this case Apex Court has held that the powers conferred upon Supreme Court and High Court, being Courts of record under Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is an inherent power and the jurisdiction vested is a special one not derived from any other statute but derived only from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the constitutionally vested right cannot be either abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut down. Nor can they be controlled or limited by any statute or by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any rules. Nor can they be controlled or limited by any statute or by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any rules. The caution that has to be observed in exercising this inherent power by summery procedure is that the power should be used sparingly, that the procedure to be followed should be fair and that the contemnor should be made aware of the charge against him and given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 5. Petitioner further relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Sanam Singh vs Sumer Singh, (2012) 3 MPLJ 717 . In this judgment, it has been held that prescribed period of one year mentioned in Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act cannot be made applicable to the case of contempt of High Court and Article 215 of the Constitution of India gives a supreme position to the High Court compared to the lower Courts. It was also held that under Article 215 of the Constitution of India no period of limitation is prescribed. High Court a Court of record of original jurisdiction, therefore, if it comes to the notice of this Court that order of Court is flouted by appellant by executing a sale deed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India necessary orders for punishment can be passed. 6. There is no quarrel to the proposition which has been laid down in these judgments. It is settled law that High Court is a Court of record and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, there is no limitation prescribed for filing of cases in which High Courts can take cognizance of the contempt committed by the contemnors. The Apex Court in the matter reported in Pallav Sheth vs Custodian and others, (2001) 7 SCC 549 has held as under : "31. This Court has always frowned upon the grant or existence of absolute or unbridled power. Just as power or jurisdiction under Article 226 has to be exercised in accordance with law, if any, enacted by the legislature it would stand to reason that the power under Article 129 and/or Article 215 should be exercised in consonance with the provisions of a validly enacted law. In case of apparent or likelihood of conflict the provisions should be construed harmoniously. * * * * 33. In case of apparent or likelihood of conflict the provisions should be construed harmoniously. * * * * 33. The question which squarely arises is as to what is the meaning to be given to the expression "no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt..." occurring in Section 20 of the 1971 Act. Section 20 deals not only with criminal contempt but also with civil contempt. It applies not only to the contempt committed in the face of the High Court or the Supreme Court but would also be applicable in the case of contempt of the subordinate court. The procedure which is to be followed in each of these cases is different." 7. Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is to be read harmoniously with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Power under Article 215 is not abridged or taken away by Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. High Court can exercise its inherent power under Article 215 to punish contemnors in appropriate case. However, power under Article 215 is to be exercised with caution. In present case petitioner was sleeping for 6 years and filed contempt petition after 6 years. I do not find it to be a fit case to exercise power under Article 215 of Constitution of India. 8. In the present case, High Court has passed an order in the year 2014 and thereafter after lapse of six years, the present contempt petition has been filed before this Court. Resultantly, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.