B N RAINA Vs. MASHER-UL-HAQ (PROF )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge to the petition in short is two fold: (i) that it is only the full court comprising of all judges which has the jurisdiction to punish for contempt in mandate of Sec. 94 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir and in any event a Single Bench has no power to exercise this inherent jurisdiction of the court in view of Rule 14 (Chapter V) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1975; and (2) that the order violation of which has been complained, mandate that the petitioners will be interviewed subject to their eligibility under promotion scheme rules which was to be determined by the respondents, who, having considered their case, found them not eligible and as such are not guilty of contempt.

(2.) SECTION 94 of the State Constitution ordains that the High Court shall have the power to punish for contempt of its order or of the courts subordinate to it. Unlike the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, so far the State has not considered any legislation on this subject. However, even in the absence of a legislation, the distinction between civil and criminal contempt has always been judicially recognised and strictly followed. Without going to the historical background about its origin, the distinction between contemptâ„¢s that are criminal and those which are civil, has been clearly stated in State v. Dasrath Jha (AIR 1951 Patna 443:

(3.) IT is thus well settled that the criminal contempt is distinct from contempt. The present case in the circumstances can be said to be a civil contempt petition because it is only the violation of the direction of the court which is being agitated. Once this view is taken, the argument that it is full court and not a single Judge who can exercise jurisdiction collapses because after an order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction it is its duty to see that it is carried out. Civil contempt as observed in the aforesaid cases is therefore, nothing but a proceeding in the nature of execution to be enforced by the court which had passed the order. Since, this order was passed by a Single of the court its compliance and violation thereof can be taken note of only by the Single Judge unless he deems it necessary to refer to the larger bench.