PRADEEP KUMAR DUBEY Vs. RAM CHANDRA ASTHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jaideep Narayan Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav Narayan Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) By means of the present appeal filed under Sec. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the appellant has assailed the order dtd. 14/8/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 656 of 2014 (Ram Chandra Asthana v. Pradeep Kumar Dubey Prin. Secy. U.P. Legislative Assembly Secy).

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has as-sailed the impugned order dtd. 14/8/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of power under Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on several grounds. His contention is that the contempt jurisdiction is quasi-criminal and requires willful disobedience to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but in the instant case, the Hon'ble Contempt Court while passing the impugned order dtd. 14/8/2025 has directed the appellant to appear on 1/9/2025 for orders on sentence without recording any finding that the disobedience, if any, was willful, intentional, knowingly, calculated and not casual, accidental, bona fide or any intentional act or genuine inability or negligent act or with a justifiable excuse. He further contended that the impugned order dtd. 14/8/2025 and the order dtd. 15/5/2025 are beyond the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Contempt Court as it amounts to passing the order deciding the merits of the dispute be-tween the parties and correctness of the order passed in compliance of the judgment passed in the writ petition. He very emphatically argued that it is the settled proposition of law that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into the questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment and order, violation of which is alleged by the contempt applicant.