Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 159 (MAN)

Ch. Nalini Sunita Devi v. Mangsatabam Harekrishna

2022-08-17

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RK Deepak, learned counsel for the respondents/contemnors. 2. This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.761 of 2021. 3. By the order dated 28.10.2021, this Court passed the following order in the writ petition: '4. Therefore, without going into the merits and demerits of the petitioner's case, I am inclined to pass the following orders:- (a) This writ petition is disposed. (b) The petitioner is directed to send the representation to both the respondents within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (c) On receipt of the said representation within the stipulated period of time fixed by this Court, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider and pass appropriate speaking order by giving personal opportunity to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months thereafter. 5. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.' 4. During the course arguments, the learned Government Advocate, by placing reliance upon the order dated 25.4.2002 passed by the Director of Education (S), submitted that the order of this Court dated 28.10.2021 has been duly complied with and therefore, the contempt petition may be closed. 5. Alleging non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 28.10.2021, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 25.4.2002 is not in tune with the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 28.10.2021. thus, the respondents disobeyed the order of this Court. Thus, they are to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 6. As stated supra, by the order dated 28.10.2021, this Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, the petitioner has also submitted his representation on 10.11.2021. The petitioner also sent a legal notice dated 19.11.2021 praying the same relief as prayed in the representation dated 10.11.2021. Upon receipt of the representation as well as the legal notice dated 19.11.2021 and pending contempt case, the Director of Education (S) has passed an order dated 25.04.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner has also submitted his representation on 10.11.2021. The petitioner also sent a legal notice dated 19.11.2021 praying the same relief as prayed in the representation dated 10.11.2021. Upon receipt of the representation as well as the legal notice dated 19.11.2021 and pending contempt case, the Director of Education (S) has passed an order dated 25.04.2022. In paragraph 6, it has been stated as under: '6. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it has been arrived to the conclusion as ordered herein that the prayer of the Petitioner for payment of pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits has already been considered as necessary pension papers/relevant documents in respect of the petitioner has already been submitted to the Under Secretary (Pension Cell), Government of Manipur vide letter No.2/181/2009-ED(S/V) Pension dated the 28th March, 2002.' 7. If the petitioner has any grievance over the aforesaid order dated 25.04.2022, he has to challenge the same in the manner known to law and cannot contend that the respondent authorities have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 28.10.2021. 8. It is settled law that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot enlarge the scope of the relief claimed and the direction given in the main proceedings. As stated supra, though the prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondent authorities to release/pay/payment of the pensionary benefits and other entitled retiral benefits of the petitioner without causing any undue delay, while hearing the writ petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that before approaching this Court, the petitioner has not submitted any representation and therefore, it is suffice if the Court direct the petitioner to submit a representation and upon receipt of the same, direct the respondents to consider the same and pass orders. It appears that the aforesaid direction has been duly complied with by issuing the order dated 25.4.2022 pending contempt case. The correctness of the order dated 25.04.2022 cannot be gone into in this contempt petition. 9. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment and order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher Court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher Court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher Court. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or order. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with petition for initiating of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that pending contempt petition due compliance of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in the W.P.No.(C) No.761 of 2021 has been made and this Court cannot enlarge the scope exercising contempt jurisdiction. 11. In the result, (a) the contempt case is closed by giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 25.04.2022 in the manner known to law if the petitioner is aggrieved. (b) No costs.