SWETA CHANDRA Vs. ABU TAHER ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a contempt appeal directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.4.2000 under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act whereby the id. Single Judge has convicted the appellant/contemnor on finding her guilty and punished her with fine of Rs. 1,500/- and directed that such fine should be paid within three weeks from date thereof and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that an interim order was passed by learned Single Judge on 2nd September, 1998 which reads as under :

(3.) It is alleged that the order dated 2.9.98 was served on the appellant/contemnor by a communication addressed by the petitioner's advocate on 9.9.98. Thereafter by another letter dated 24.11.98 petitioner's advocate again sent reminder to the appellant requesting for taking necessary steps so that the petitioner could be called for interview but without any result. Then again on 27th February, 1999 petitioner's advocate reminded appellant referring to his earlier communications dated 9.9.98 and 24.11.98 that the petitioner may be called for interview in pursuance of the direction given by this Court which are scheduled to be held on 28.2.99. All these communications did not bear any fruit. Ultimately, interview was held on 28th February, 1999 and the petitioner was not called for interview. Therefore, petitioner moved the contempt petition before this Court, Rules was issued and a reply was filed by the contemnor. It was admitted that the petitioner did receive this order. In para 8 of her reply filed in the contempt petition she admitted that she had received the plain copy of the order without copy of the writ petition. Therefore, it is admitted position that the plain copy of the order passed by this Court was received by the petitioner. However, it is also said in the reply that as per Rules writ petitioner cannot be treated to be a trained candidate as he was not having Junior Basic Training. It was submitted that B.Ed. Degree cannot be treated at per with the Junior Basic Training Degree. Therefore, the petitioner was not called for the interview for the post of the Assistant Teacher of Primary School. It is a different matter that whether the petitioner was eligible for being called for the interview or not, that issue is to be debated in the writ petition. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has already qualified the order that the petitioner be called for interview and the result shall not be published. That is not relevant at present that whether the petitioner was eligible or not. In the present case the question is whether the petitioner was eligible or not. In the present case the question is whether the interim order passed by this Court was complied by the appellant/contemnor or not. When the positive order is passed by the Court it is not given to the respondent to sit over the matter and say that the order is to be complied with or not as it is not in accordance with law. If the respondent were vigilant they could have joined the issue by filing proper application for vacation of stay order or appealed in time. In alternative they could have called the incumbent for the interview and reserved the consideration of the incumbent and approached the Court for modification of order. That was not done and the appellant/contemnor took upon themselves to decide whether the order passed by the Court is to be complied with or not. This kind of approach is absolutely not wanted. If this kind of latitude is given to the parties then no order passed by the Court could be implemented. In the Rule of law the authorities are under obligation to comply with the order of the Court and it is not given to their sweet will. In the present case it is more than apparent that the order was brought to the notice of the authorities not only once but also thrice and the appellant/contemnor in her reply has admitted that she had knowledge of the order. Therefore, despite the fact that the order was in the knowledge of the appellant still she did not pay any heed and did not call the candidate for interview. Not only this, even at the time when the matter was being argued before the learned Single Judge in contempt proceedings the contemnor did not show any remorse and did not offer to comply that order but on the contrary contested the matter therefore, there was no option left with the learned Single Judge to give a finding that the appellant is guilty of contempt or not. We are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct that the appellant is seriously guilty of flouting the order passed by this Court. In this connection reference may be made to Hadkinson v. Hadkinson, 1952 2 AllER 567, the Court of Appeal observed :