Brajesh Kumar vs Shri Prabhakar Sharma

Shri Narayan Shukla, J.

(C.M. Application No. 109188 of 2010)

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the Respondent.

The Petitioner has moved the application for recall of order dated 8th of October, 2010, whereby the contempt petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that when the case was called out on 8th of October, 2010, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner due to busyness in Court No. 6 could not attend the Court. Therefore, the petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Further, the non attendance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the Court is neither deliberate nor willful.

On the other hand, Mr. Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondent raised objection against the application in light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of State Vs. Baldev Raj, He drew the attention of the Court to paragraph 14 of the judgment, which is reproduced here-in-under:

Obviously the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 not only defines civil and criminal contempt but also lays down the procedure. This Act does not expressly give any inherent power to the High Court in matter of contempt of Court. It provides in Section 19 appeals from order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. When the Act does not confer inherent power or power of recall or review and provides remedy against order or decision in the matters of contempt, the power of the High Court of recall or review in matters of contempt cannot be invoked.

After going the aforesaid paragraph of the judgment, I am of the view that the said principle applies in that case, which has been decided on merit, whereas the present case has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

Therefore, considering the explanation as stated in the affidavit file in support of the application, I am of the view that the order dated 8th of October 2010, is liable to be recalled and the same is hereby recalled.

The contempt petition is restored in its original number.

Contempt petition is restored to its original number vide my order of date passed on C.M. Application No. 109188 of 2010.

List in the next week before the appropriate Court.