NEEMA Vs. R. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner, being Writ Petition No.1487 of 2016, Neema vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, was decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 23.03.2018. In fact, the disposal of the said Writ Petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner was on the basis of an earlier ratio settle down in a judgment dated 08.12.2016, rendered in writ Petition No.1730 of 2014, Sambhu Paswan and another vs. Union of India and others.

(2.) Being aggrieved against the said judgment, the State has preferred a special appeal, being Special Appeal No.775 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand vs. Neema, which was dismissed by the judgment of 27.11.2018. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties, that, aggrieved against the Division Bench judgment on 27.11.2018, an SLP has been preferred, which is still pending consideration, but, the fact remains, that, in case, if in the judgment which has been sought to be enforced is taken into consideration may be that it contemplated the respondent to adhered to the directions or the guidelines given in para 17 dated 08.12.2016, but, the ultimate conclusion drawn was that the determination of those parameters was yet left open to be decided by the respondent as provided in the concluding part of the judgment dated 23.03.2018. This scope of applicability and the implications of para 17 was still left open to be considered by the respondent, while, deciding the controversy, alleging its non-compliance, the Contempt Petition was filed by the petitioner on 21.04.2019, on which the notices were issued and the respondents have filed their compliance affidavit on 23.09.2019, where they have placed on record, the order of 26.08.2019, passed by the Director Elementary Education which apparently reflects that it happens to be in compliance of the direction dated 23.08.2018, though, it is a fact, which is, disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the pretext that, in fact, the said decision of 26.08.2019, passed by the Director of Elementary Education cannot be said to be a direction in a strict compliance of the judgment dated 23.03.2018, which contained a specific directions that the decision was to be taken in the light of the para 17 of the earlier judgment of 08.12.2016.

(3.) The tenacity of the argument the learned counsel for the petitioner may be alluring, but, not for the purposes of the Contempt, because the Contempt ultimately which was drawn by the conclusion on 23.03.2018, was that the respondents were directed to consider the aspect of consideration as has already been reflected by the order dated 26.08.2019. What was the scope of its consideration? Whether it satisfies the condition of para 17 of the judgment of 08.12.2016, may not be a scope of interference in a Contempt Jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, because this Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, cannot scrutinize the decision and adorn to itself the powers or the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.