AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These applications arise out of an order in CC No.866 of 1997 in WP No.2070 of 1996, wherein the respondents-authorities were admonished by this Court for causing delay in passing of the order in spite of the direction to pass orders within two weeks.
The brief facts leading to the present review applications are that the respondent herein-writ petitioner filed WP No.2070 of 1996 seeking a direction to the petitioners here in-respondents authorities in the writ petition to regularise his services in the respondents-Society. This Court by an order dated 7-2-1996 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services in terms of G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 and pass appropriate orders within two months (sic. weeks) from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, in spite of specific directions of this Court, it was complained in CC No.866 of 1997, that no orders were passed in obedience of the directions given to the respondents in the writ petition. It appears that during the pendency of the Contempt Case in fact the case of the writ petitioner was considered and his claim for regularisation of services was refused by order dated 24-9-1997 and the same was brought to the notice of the learned Judge hearing the contempt case. The learned Judge while closing the contempt case observed as follows:
"This is compounded by the fact that there is a delay in passing of the order inspite of the directions to pass orders within two weeks. There is no whisper of apology in the counter-affidavit. In these circumstances, the respondents are admonished for the delay and a note of this recalcitrant attitude shall be kept in the confidential reports of the officers concerned. However, the petitioner has to seek his remedies against the order dated 24-9-1997 separately. The contempt case is closed."
In substance, the order of the learned Judge in the contempt case is neither an order punishing the respondent-authorities sentencing to suffer simple imprisonment as contemplated u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (for short ''the Act'') or to pay a fine or both. In the instant case none of these punishments have been awarded to the petitioners herein, nor did the learned Judge recorded the categorical finding that the respondents in the contempt case were found guilty of the contempt of Court.
However, in view of the obser vations made by the learned Judge in the contempt case, the petitioners herein filed an affidavit tendering apology.
As far as the factual stand is concerned the case of the petitioners herein is that at the relevant point of time the first petitioner was not the District Collector, Chairman, District Scheduled Castes Service Co-operative Society Limited, Adilabad. According to him, in the writ petition, final orders were passed on 7-2-1996 and a copy of the said order was received in the Office of the District Collector on 23-2-1996, that the first petitioner herein assumed the charge of the Office of the District Collector, Adilabad on 11-8-1996 and that therefore whatever be the delay in dealing with the case of the writ petition in WP No.2070 of 1996 occurred by the time he resumed charge as Collector, Adilabad, by which time the correspondence between the Office of the Collector and the Government of Andhra Pradesh was going on and finally and after the required legal consultation process was completed the 1st petitioner herein took a decision to reject the case of the writ petitioner. In the back ground of the said facts the petitioners herein submitted that the observations made by the learned Judge in the contempt case are not warranted. Apart from it the petitioners herein filed Review CA No.465 of 1998 tendering their unconditional apology in the affidavit filed in support of the present petition.
Sri A. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent herein (writ petitioner) submitted that under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the Court is not vested with the power of review of its own order and that, therefore, the present applications are not maintainable. According to him, if the respondents-authorities are really aggrieved by the order, which is the subject matter of the present review applications, they ought to have preferred an appeal u/s 19 of the Act. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner relied upon the decisions in State v. Baldev Raj 1992 Cri.LJ 1251 , and Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, .
In State v. Baldev Raj (supra), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dealing with a case where the contemner was sentenced to suffer two months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence of criminal contempt of Court held that when the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 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.
In the case on hand the petitioners in the review petitions were admonished by the learned Judge and no punishment of simple imprisonment or fine was imposed on them. The learned Judge while dealing with the case of contempt for non-implementation of the orders passed in the writ petition within the time stipulated, simply made certain observations against the contemners. Therefore, the facts of the case on hand are different from the facts of the case State v. Baldev Raj (supra).
In Thakershi''s case (supra) the Supreme Court, dealing with the question whether the State Government under the provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act has the power to review its own order, held that the power to review is not an inherent power and that it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication.
Sri G. Chandraiah, learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioners herein submitted that no doubt the statute docs not expressly provide the power or jurisdiction to exercise the power to review the orders inasmuch as such power is (sic. by) necessary implication exists in the Court. In the case of constitutional Courts i.e., the High Courts and the Supreme Court, the power of review can always be expected.
High Courts are Courts of record and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India it provides that:
"Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself."
It is clear from the above provision of the Constitution that the power to punish for contempt exists in it by reason of its being a Court of record and takes note of the fact that such power is inherent in a Court of record.
It is to be seen that the two judgments referred to supra relied upon by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner did not consider the scope of the power of High Courts under Article 215 and on the other hand both the Judgments proceeded by examining the scope of power of the High Court to review its own order in contempt case on the basis of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The scope of the power under Articles 215 and 129 fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another, . Dealing with the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act vis-a-vis Article 140(2), the Supreme Court held that:
"..... the power to punish for contempt being inherent in a Court of record, it follows that no Act of Parliament can take away that inherent jurisdiction of the Court of record to punish for contempt and Parliament''s power of legislation on the subject cannot, therefore, be so exercised so as to stultify the status and dignity of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts, though such a legislation may serve as a guide for the determination of the nature of punishment which the Supreme Court may impose in the case of established contempt."
It can be seen that while the Courts of limited jurisdiction, created by Statute are to be conferred with the power to review, the Constitutional Courts are empowered to exercise such a power of review by necessary implication. Therefore, the High Court has the necessary power to review its own orders whether in a contempt case or in other cases. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in State Vs. Baldev Raj, , dealing with the question where (sic. whether) the High Courts could review its own powers (sic. orders) passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution held that:
"...... It is sufficient to say that there is nothing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude a High Court from exercising the powers of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave palpable errors committed by it....."
Hence, I do not see any force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Contempt petitioners.
Coming to the merits of the case, in fact the first petitioner herein was not the person who dealt with the case. He took charge as the District Collector, Adilabad only on 11-8-1996 i.e., only (after some) six months after the order in the writ petition was received by the office of the Collector. Therefore the entire delay cannot be attributed to him. Apart from that, he has now filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology, for the delay caused in (his) lands. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for deletion of the observations made by the learned Judge in his order dated 20-10-1997 in the Contempt case. The observations made against the review petitioners herein in CC No.866 of 1997, dated 20-10-1997 are deleted.
The review Contempt Applications are accordingly allowed by reviewing the order dated 20-10-1997 in CC No.866 of 1997.