LAWS(PAT)-2011-12-17

SUNIL PRAKASH TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On December 22, 2011
Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with a prayer to initiate proceedings of contempt against the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 for not implementing the order dated 31.12.2007 by the Appellate Authority being the Minister, Transport Department, Government of Bihar passed under Section 24(1)(b) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. An objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of the contempt petition with respect to such an order.

(2.) The short facts leading up to the filing of the present application are that the Transport Commissioner who was at the relevant time the Secretary, Transport Department also and holding the charge of the Office of the Transport Commissioner by his order dated 7.7.2006 dismissed the petitioner from the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. Against the said order of dismissal the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 24(1)(b) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (in short 'the Rules') before the Minister of State Transport (Independent Charge). After hearing the petitioner as also the Transport Commissioner, the Appellate Authority, set aside the order of dismissal dated 7.7.2006 by his order dated 31.12.2007. Thereafter the petitioner met the Transport Commissioner and subsequently the Secretary, Transport Department also requesting them to implement the order dated 31.12.2007. The petitioner then moved the Appellate Authority to refer the matter to this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5, the Secretary and the Transport Commissioner for not implementing the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Transport Minister issued repeated notices to the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 to appear before him and explain the reasons for not implementing the order but they did not do so. However, since the Appellate Authority did not refer the matter to this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings the petitioner has filed the present application with the prayer aforesaid.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2005 Rules have been framed under Article 309of the Constitution of India and thus have a statutory character and the Appellate Authority is a statutory authority under the said Rules and thus it is a Tribunal/Quasi Judicial Authority and therefore a subordinate court to the High Court and under the jurisdiction of this Court that exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution over all the courts and Tribunals within the State. It is urged by learned counsel that the High Court is bound to uphold the majesty of all Tribunals under it under Article 227 of the Constitution and in case of non-implementation of their orders proceed to initiate contempt proceedings against those guilty of such wilful disobedience.