Shiv Nath Prasad Khandelwal vs Ram Kumar, District Magistrate and Another

B.K. Rathi, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri M. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.

In this case, on 27.2.1993 an order was passed by Munsif, district Mau directing the opposite parties to maintain status-quo of picture hall, Krishna Chitra Mandir. It is alleged that the order has been violated and the District Magistrate on 20.6.2002, has directed for repair in the said hall and also permitted Sri Chandrama Prasad to enter into the hall. Therefore, the application for contempt has been filed against the opposite parties.

The learned counsel in support of the arguments has referred to the decision of Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Vidya Charan Shukla Vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and another, It was held that in case of disobedience of injunction order besides the remedy provided under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX, C.P.C., High Court can also exercise the powers under Articles 215 and 323 of the Constitution of India.

The other case referred to is Ram Prakash and Bros. and Others Vs. Nagar Mahapalika and Others, In this case, the order of injunction was passed by the District Judge and the same was confirmed in appeal by the High Court. Therefore, it was a held that the order of the District Judge has merged in the appellate order of the High Court and, therefore, the High Court can also punish the contemnor under Sections 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act as the opposite parties have violated not only the order of the District Judge but the order of the High Court also.

The above decision of Madras High Court cannot be followed in view of the fact that decision of this Court are otherwise. The case of Ram Prakash (supra) also does not help to the applicant.

In S. G. Pagaare v. Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and Ors. 1987 AWC 506 it was held by this Court that where alternative remedy under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. Is available, proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken.

In Pratap Narain Pande v. Smt. Nomita Roy and Ors. 1984 AWC 567 the similar view was also expressed and it was held that remedy under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. is far more adequate and satisfactory remedy as disobedience of an injunction order of the court below is involved.

Similar views were also taken by this Court in other cases and it was held that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be permitted to be initiated by a person to whom an effective and alternative remedy of the nature of the under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A. C.P.C. or Order XXI, Rule 32, C.P.C. Is available. This view was expressed tn the following cases :

(1) Smt. Indu Tewari Vs. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari and Others,

(2) Smt. Alka Jaiswal v. Fr. I. Femandes 1986 ALJ 133.

(3) Anis Ahmad Khan v. State 1985 ALR 307.

I accordingly find that the application is not maintainable. The application for contempt is accordingly rejected.