SURYA MANI SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the appellants. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur for the respondents. The order under appeal has been challenged by the appellants, who say that they were not party in the writ petition, wherein certain directions were issued by the learned Single Judge for preparing the seniority list, keeping in mind the directives issued therein. In the contempt petition, the Contempt Judge interpreted the order passed in the writ petition and issued a direction that it was not a judgement in personam but it was a judgement in rem providing general guidelines, which has been incorrectly interpreted by the State and, therefore, a direction was issued to reconsider the determination of seniority list as per the directives issued with a further direction that compliance report be submitted on the date fixed. The learned Single Judge dealing with contempt matters could only see whether the judgement/directives issued by the Court have been complied with or not, but it requires no detailed discussion that directions for doing the thing in a particular manner, probably may not be the domain of the Contempt Judge. The plea of the appellants that they were not party in the writ petition and, therefore, any direction issued in the contempt matter, would become binding upon them and, therefore, they are entitled to challenge the said order by filing the special appeal, is not totally devoid of merits. Since the question is as to whether the judgement passed in the present matter is binding upon the appellants, it would be appropriate to mention that the appellants are given liberty to move appropriate application in the pending proceedings, may be of contempt or they may also move appropriate application in the writ petition, in which these directions have been issued or if it is permissible, they can also challenge the order passed in the writ petition in the appropriate superior forum as per rules. So far the present appeal is concerned, though it is maintainable on behalf of the appellants, but we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in view of the liberty aforesaid given to the appellants. Accordingly, the special appeal is disposed of.