M.K. STHAPAK Vs. PRASHANT MEHTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today, the matter is listed for further arguments by the petitioner. However, Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that he does not want to add anything further to what has already been said and prays that the Court may pass appropriate order in the contempt petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Court while exercising the contempt jurisdiction has only to see whether the directions given in the order of which the noncompliance is alleged, were complied with or not and while doing so, the court cannot go into the validity of the order passed one way or other. The learned counsel has placed before this Court another Division Bench decision in the case of K.L. Sharma v. Shastri Higher Secondary School, CONA No.1/2016 and 2012 (2) MPLJ 29 State of M.P. and another v. Virendra Singh Parihar and others. In K.L. Sharma (supra) the Division Bench after taking into consideration the previous decision of Court in Manjula Choudhary v. Priyanka Chouhan reported in 2015(4) MPLJ 704 and the decision of the Supreme court in V. Kanakarajan v. General Manager, South Eastern Railway and others (1996) 10 SCC 102 has held that in contempt proceedings, the Court is only required to see whether the directions issued by the writ court has been complied with or not and court in the contempt jurisdiction cannot go into merits and order and grant relief beyond the relief granted in the original writ petition.

(3.) It is further contended that hearing the contempt petition to issue such directions and the order being an interim order is open to interference and correction. The learned counsel has relied on (1997) 1 SCC 156 State of M.P. and others v. M.V. Vyavsaya company.