LAWS(CAL)-2023-5-165

SAILESH KUMAR Vs. SMITHA R. IAS

Decided On May 18, 2023
SAILESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Smitha R. Ias Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Because of the conflicting decisions operating in the field pertaining to the filing of the contempt application before the Single Bench after the order of the Single Bench is affirmed by the Division Bench, alleging the violation thereof, the following reference has been made for answer by the Special Bench :-

(2.) The referral was made on a contempt application filed before the Single Bench alleging the violation of an order dtd. 14/7/2022 passed in WPA 863 of 2022. The said order was carried in appeal and the Division Bench of this Court affirmed the said order on 18/1/2023 in MA 16 of 2022. Alleging the 2. violation of the order dtd. 14/7/2022 passed by the Single Bench, a contempt application was filed before the Single Bench and a point was taken that in view of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in Kunhayammed and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Anr., reported in (2000)6 SCC 359 and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Ors. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Kollegal, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376. The doctrine of merger was made applicable and therefore, the order of the Single Bench merged with the order of the Division Bench and lost its existence in the eye of law. The Single Bench further noticed the earlier Single Bench decision in case of Tetulia Coke Plant (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs. P. S. Bhattacharya, reported in 2012 (3) CLJ (CAL) 185 and unreported order dtd. 23/9/2021 passed in CPAN 389 of 2021 (Imperium Energy Utility Services LLP vs. Prem Sagar Mishra and Ors.) and order dtd. 26/7/2022 in CPAN 9 of 2020 (Baratang Forest Worker's Union and Anr. vs. Tarun Coomer) taking a different view. A subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dineshan K.K. vs. R.K. Singh and Anr., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 88 was further noticed by the referral Judge wherein the Supreme Court even upholding the applicability of doctrine of merger held that the proper forum to entertain the contempt applications would be the Judge in the High Court who passed the initial order.

(3.) Such being the foundation of the reference because of the conflicting decisions taken by the different judges, this Bench is constituted to answer those references.