Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 88 (MAN)

Jim Golden Thingujam v. Sukham Premjit Singh

2021-12-07

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : M V MURALIDARAN, J. This application has been filed by the applicant seeking to implead him as respondent No. 3 in the Contempt Case (C) No 51 of 2021 filed for the non-compliance of the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018. 2. Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. B.P. Shau, learned senior counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner and also the respondents 2 and 3/contemnors. 3. Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that challenging the promotion of the applicant to the post of Joint Director, SCERT, the first respondent filed the writ petition and by the order dated 28.02.2020, this Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred W.A.No. 18 of 2021 along with interim prayer for staying the order dated 28.2.2020. He would submit that the official respondents 2 and 3 have also preferred an appeal bearing W.A. No. 19 of 2021 against the very same order passed in the writ petition and in the said two appeals, the Division Bench of this Court ordered status quo to be maintained and the same is still in force. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is still holding the post of Joint Director, SCERT and since the applicant was protected by the interim order of the Division Bench, he is necessary and proper party in the contempt proceedings filed by the first respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that after knowing the order directing the parties to maintain status quo as on 22.05.2020, the first respondent filed the contempt petition on 24.04.2021 and that the initiation of contempt proceedings for non-compliance during the pendency of the writ appeals is not proper and cannot stand in the eye of law. In support, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modern Food Industries (Inda) Limited and another v Sachidanand Dass and another, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465. 6. Per contra, Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 ought to have removed the applicant from the date of judgment i.e. 28.2.2020, as the same was held to be unconstitutional and the order to remove him was to be given effect to immediately. 6. Per contra, Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 ought to have removed the applicant from the date of judgment i.e. 28.2.2020, as the same was held to be unconstitutional and the order to remove him was to be given effect to immediately. He would submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has passed an order to maintain status quo as on that date which was on 22.05.2020 i.e. after about three months, and on that date the applicant cannot be said to be holding the post of Joint Director, SCERT and in case, the applicant was allowed to hold the post, it is highly illegal and in gross violation of the order passed in the writ petition and, in any event, the official respondents/contemnors cannot take advantage of their own illegal act. 7. Learned senior counsel for the first respondent further submitted that a contempt case can only be filed against the contemnor, who has disobeyed the order of the Court and in the present case, since the respondents 2 and 3 are the primary contemnors and the contempt petition has been filed only against them, the applicant is not a necessary party In support, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyabrata Biswas and others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and others, (1994) 2 SCC 266 . 8. Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 9. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The first respondent has filed W.P. (C) No. 1210 of 2018 seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto to declare the promotion of the applicant to the post of Joint Director, SCERT as unconstitutional and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to oust/remove him from the post of Joint Director as he was holding the said post without any authority of law. By the order dated 28.2.2020, this Court allowed the writ petition, thereby issuing quo-warranto by declaring the promotion of the applicant to the post of Joint Director, SCERT as unconstitutional and directed the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition to remove the applicant from the post of Joint Director, SCERT immediately. 11. By the order dated 28.2.2020, this Court allowed the writ petition, thereby issuing quo-warranto by declaring the promotion of the applicant to the post of Joint Director, SCERT as unconstitutional and directed the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition to remove the applicant from the post of Joint Director, SCERT immediately. 11. Aggrieved by the order made in W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018, the applicant has filed W.A.No.18 of 2020 and the respondent State filed WA.No.19 of 2020. When both the writ appeals were taken up on 22.5.2020, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order : “Heard Mr. M.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Admit Call for the records. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the principal respondents 1 & 2, Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel assisting Mr. N.Kumarjit, learned AG, Manipur on behalf of the respondent Nos 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent No.6. As all the respondents are represented, no formal steps are required. List the matter on 5th June, 2020 for hearing in the admission stage. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today.” 12. Thus, it is clear that as against the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018, writ appeals have been preferred by the applicant as well as the respondent State, wherein the Division Bench of this Court passed an order to maintain status quo as on 22.5.2020. It appears that only after passing the order of status quo, the first respondent has filed the contempt petition on 24.4.2021 after a delay of nearly one year alleging disobedience of the order passed in the writ petition by the official respondents. 13. The argument of learned counsel for the first respondent that the order of status quo was passed on 22.05.2020 i.e. after about three months from the date of passing order in the writ petition, and on that date le 22.05.2020, the applicant cannot be said to be holding the post of Joint Director, SCERT cannot be countenanced for the reason that if really the official respondents willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of the Court, the first respondent can very well initiate contempt proceedings without waiting for a long time. Having waited for long time and after knowing the filling of the writ appeals and entering appearance therein, the first respondent filed the contempt petition. This Court is of the view that the applicant ought to be heard inasmuch as his personal right is affected Since pending writ appeals the first respondent filed the contempt petition, the applicant has to be impleaded in the contempt petition in order to put forth his case as he got an order of status quo to be maintained. That apart, the fact remains that till date the order of status quo has not been vacated. 14. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the law is well settled that initiation of contempt proceedings for non-compliance during the pendency of the appeal is not proper and is nothing but misconceived. 15. In Sachidanand Dass, supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “4. .... Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and to insist upon proceeding with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases, as here, cause serious prejudice. ... 5. In the present case, under the threat of proceedings of contempt, the appellants had to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the pendency of their appeal and the application for stay. ....” 16. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the first respondent that contempt case can only be filed against the contemnor, who has disobeyed the order of the Court, and in the instant case since the respondents 2 and 3 are the primary contemnors and the contempt petition has been filed only against them, the applicant is not a necessary party is concerned, it cannot be said that the applicant is a third party to the contempt proceedings Since the applicant has filed the writ appeal against the order of which willful disobedience is complained of and since the applicant is holding the post till date, it is necessary to implead him in the contempt petition in the factual circumstances of the case. It is reiterated that the applicant is prejudiced by the order passed in the writ petition and as against the same, the applicant has filed writ appeal and also obtained an order of status quo to be maintained by the parties. 17. Learned senior counsel for the first respondent by placing reliance upon the decision in Satyabrata Biswas, supra, submitted that status que as of today could only mean as on 22.05.2020 and this cannot be the state of affairs even after one and half years of that order. 18. In Satyabrata Biswas, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held : “18. .... The status quo is not a status quo as on the date of inventory but the status quo as of September 15, 1988. The order of that date states unequivocally “status quo as of today”. That could only mean September 15, 1988 and there cannot be the state of affairs after five years of that order.” 19. As admitted by the first respondent, since the applicant is holding the post of Joint Director, SCERT till date, he should also be heard while hearing the contempt petition and for the said limited purpose, the applicant is directed to be impleaded as fourth respondent in the Contempt Case (C) No. 51 of 2021. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents in the contempt petition, particularly the first respondent, if the applicant is impleaded as party respondent in the contempt petition. On the other hand, if the applicant is not impleaded great hardship would be caused to the applicant as he has filed the writ appeal against the order passed in the writ petition and the same is pending Furthermore, it will be very useful for this Court to decide whether the official respondents have willfully disobeyed the order made in the writ petition. 20. In the result, a) M.C.(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 75 of 2021 is allowed. b) the applicant in this MC(Cont.Cas(C)) No. 75 of 2021 is impleaded as party respondent No. 3 in the Cont.Cas(C) No. 51 of 2021 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 1210 of 2018). c) No costs. 21. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.