SURESH CHANDRA PODDAR Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an instance of how a Tribunal vested with the powers to punish for contempt of Court became over- sensitive in using such powers. Time and again this Court has cautioned as to when and in what circumstances Contempt of Court jurisdiction is to be exercised. Such a power is not intended to be exercised as a matter of course. Courts should not feel unduly touchy when they are told that the orders have not been implemented forthwith. If the Court is told that the direction or the order of the Court has been complied with subsequently, albeit after receipt of notice of contempt, we expect the Courts to show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with the action for contempt.

(2.) The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, has now convicted the Director of Eduction, Government of NCT of Delhi under Section of 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 2000/- as per the impugned order. The Bench held that the appellant is guilty of contempt, not because he did not implement the order passed by the Tribunal but because there was delay in implementing the order.

(3.) The order of the Tribunal which is said to have been belatedly complied with was passed on 3rd November, 1999, the operative portion of which reads thus :-