Chanda Ram Bunkar S/O Shri Prabhu Dayal vs. Shri A.K. Jha

Held

The Court held that the contempt petition raises disputed questions of fact, which are not amenable to adjudication in contempt proceedings. The Court noted that the original writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed as infructuous on 10.10.2007, with the petitioner's counsel acknowledging that the petitioner had superannuated and nothing remained to be decided. Therefore, there was no ground for interference in the contempt petition. The Court dismissed the contempt petition but granted the petitioner liberty to avail other appropriate remedies available to him as per law. The specific order dated 23.08.2017, which was alleged to be non-compliant, was not detailed in the judgment, nor were the specific provisions of law under which the contempt was alleged.

Facts

The petitioner, Chanda Ram Bunkar, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a High Court order dated 23.08.2017. The contempt petition stemmed from a previous writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by the High Court on 10.10.2007, in the presence of the petitioner's counsel. At that time, the petitioner's counsel had stated that the petitioner had superannuated on 31.12.2004 and nothing remained to be decided in the writ petition. The respondents are Shri A.K. Jha, Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, and Shri P.K. Singh, Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-I (now Chief Commissioner CGST, Jaipur Zone).

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have failed to comply with the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by this Court, thereby constituting contempt of court? The petitioner argued that the order dated 23.08.2017 has not been complied with. The respondents' stance, as inferred from the court's dismissal, is that the contempt petition raises disputed questions of fact, implying no contempt has occurred. The court's reasoning suggests that the original writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 10.10.2007, and the petitioner's counsel had acknowledged this, stating nothing remained to be decided. The contempt petition appears to be an attempt to re-litigate or raise issues that were considered settled.