STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Bihar is in appeal against the order of the learned single Judge who by the same held that there was violation of the Court's order. Without indicating as to what was the consequence of such violation, it directed re-consideration of the order purported to have been passed in compliance with the direction of the High Court. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-State there was no violation of the High Court's order and as such the finding recorded and the direction for re-consideration are not sustainable in law.

(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, who was the applicant before the High Court, for initiation of contempt proceedings submitted that learned single Judge was justified in holding that there was violation of the Court's order but having said so, should not have directed for re-consideration and on the other should have punished the contemnor.

(3.) While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision, which has received its finality, had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari and Another v. Union of India and Others (2001 (10) SCC 496). 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 or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the concerned party 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. Though strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the State of Bihar on a three-Judge Bench decision in Niaz Mohammad and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (1994 (6) SCC 352), we find that the same has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the question arose about the impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand of the State, the least it could have done was to assail correctness of the judgment before the higher Court. State took diametrically opposite stands before this Court. One was that there was no specific direction to do anything in particular and, second was what was required to be done has been done. If what was to be done has been done, it cannot certainly be said that there was impossibility to carry out the orders. In any event, the High Court has not recorded a finding that the direction given earlier was impossible to be carried out or that the direction given has been complied with.