Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 397 (PAT)

Meera Singh v. State of Bihar

2024-04-20

ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, P.B.BAJANTHRI

body2024
P. B. Bajanthri, J. – For the first time, Respondents-University are taking new plea in the M.J.C./Contempt Petition to the extent that they were not arrayed as parties in L.P.A. No.218 of 2016 decided on 25.07.2016 and further it is submitted that this M.J.C./Contempt Petition is not maintainable. Such contentions have not been taken in their counter affidavit. Therefore, both the contentions are rejected. Be that as it may, contempt matters are among the Court and contemnor/s. 2. For non-compliance of the order dated 22.03.2024, salary of the Registrar of Bhagalpur University (T.M.B. University, Bhagalpur) shall not be disbursed till further orders. That apart, in paragraph-4 of the affidavit of Professor (Dr.) Vikash Chandra, who has been authorized by the Registrar of Bhagalpur University (T.M.B. University, Bhagalpur) is incomplete. Similarly, in paragraph-1 of the affidavit, there is blank in respect of Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the present show cause has been filed without application of mind. In fact, it is liable to be rejected. 3. If the University have made a written communication to the State Government to provide certain funds, it is an internal correspondence. After disposal of petition, the University must have acted immediately in taking steps what are the dues to be paid to the petitioners. If they do not have fund and they are in need of fund, in such circumstances, in 2016 itself, they should have made a correspondence with the State Government insofar as providing fund. On the other hand, they have opened their eyes only as and when contempt of Courts’ notice was issued and further adverse order was passed on the previous date on 22.03.2024 and it is deprecated. 4. We have noticed in most of the cases, after allowing C.W.J.C. or L.P.A., the State-respondents or University on one hand, they do not prefer litigation before next forum and they do not open their eyes till filing of contempt of courts petition. That apart, we have also noticed that as and when contempt of Courts’ notice was issued to the official respondent, they open their eyes and proceed to implement the orders of this Court after lapse of number of years or in the alternative, they seek time to go to the next forum like LPA Bench or Hon’ble Supreme Court. That apart, we have also noticed that as and when contempt of Courts’ notice was issued to the official respondent, they open their eyes and proceed to implement the orders of this Court after lapse of number of years or in the alternative, they seek time to go to the next forum like LPA Bench or Hon’ble Supreme Court. No doubt, they have a fundamental right to approach the next higher forum, however, for no reasons, they are sleeping over the matter. In other words, invariably each petition is followed by one or the other Contempt Petition. This is deprecated. 5. It has become a rule, rather than an exception, that a litigant, having obtained an order from a Constitutional Court, is not sure of the order bearing the fruit of relief in actual terms. Every litigant is compelled, under varied circumstances, to knock the doors of the Court repeatedly with the same cause. The insouciant attitude of certain officials has reduced the solemn constitutional power of contempt, as enshrined under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to that of an execution proceeding under Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, in every second instance of remedial orders given by the High Court, to have the order enforced, the petitioner is required to file a contempt case, the above observations are made in the case of A. Suseelamma and others vs. District Educational Officer and others ( 2014(4) ALD 537 ). 6. The present order shall be taken note of and see that orders of this Court is implemented by the next date of hearing failing which the Contempt of Courts action would be initiated by summoning the concerned Officers through Video Conferencing or physical presence insofar as framing of charge under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Rule 7(i) read with Form 1 of Chapter XXVIII of Rules of the High Court at Patna framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971). 7. Re-list this matter on 19.06.2024. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the University submitted that the University Bank Account have been freezed by the State Government from 15.03.2024. On such ground, contempt of Court matter cannot be adjourned for an indefinite period. The University should have apprised the State Government or freezing authority that they are facing Contempt of Courts’ action. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the University submitted that the University Bank Account have been freezed by the State Government from 15.03.2024. On such ground, contempt of Court matter cannot be adjourned for an indefinite period. The University should have apprised the State Government or freezing authority that they are facing Contempt of Courts’ action. The University counsel is hereby directed to furnish details of such freezing proceedings passed by the competent authority on the next date of hearing so as to issue notice to the concerned authority to the effect that such authority is coming in the way of implementation of the orders of this Court or abusing the process of this Court.