R.K.Gulati - (1.) THIS contempt petition filed under section 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is directed against 12 persons arrayed as opposite parties in the petition. Insofar as opposite parties no. 4 to 12 are concerned, there is no whisper muchless any allegation of any charge, omission attributable to them. Whatever allegations of alleged contemptuous conduct have been made in the petition are directed against opposite parties no. 1 to 3, namely, Sub-Divisional Officer, Naraini, Police Station Officer Naraini and Tehsildar Naraini respectively.
(2.) THE applicant claims that he is a bhumidhar of khatauni khata no. 62 of village Madhopur, Tehsil Naraini, District Banda, and certain land of the applicant was declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge, Banda. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed a writ petition No. 9658 of 1985 (Ram Sajiwan v. HI Additional District Judge, Banda and others) in which a learned Single Judge of this Court granted an interim order dated 15-7-1985 directing: "Until further orders, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the land in dispute". It is claimed that the said interim order is still in operation and the writ petition is pending adjudication. THE case taken up in this petition is that Sub-Divisional Officer. Naraini, accompanied by Police Station Officer,. Tehsildar and other police force came to the disputed land and threatened to cut away the crops standing thereon but they were dissuaded to do so on the persuation of certain fellow villagers of the applicant's village. This incident is said to have happened on 1st March, 1994. It is further alleged that the Station Officer, Police Station Naraini was heard saying that he wilt obey the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer rather than that of the High Court. On these allegations the applicant claims that the opposite parties are liable to be punished under the contempt of Courts Act. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length. The process of contempt of Court looking at it broadly, is designed to secure proper administration of Justice, or it is a procedure by which the Court condemns any conduct of interference with the administration of justice. Civil contempt is failure to obey a Court's order issued at the instance of a party applying for it and the principal object of a civil contempt is to secure enforcement of the order. It is not in dispute that the possession of the applicant over the disputed land, which stands protected under the interim order passed by this Court, is with the applicant and in fact, there had been no violation in terms of that order. An action for apprehended breach of an order may be sustained in a given case, where on facts a clear case is made out. However, the existence of contempt power does not call for its exercise on every occasion in a routine manner. In each case it has to be shown that there was an overt act on the part of the opposite patty to infer that he had disobeyed the order. This jurisdiction is to be sparingly exercised with restraint and circumspection when the gravity of the occasion demands it. In other words, proceedings for contempt should be taken only in cases where a court is satisfied that something has been done which necessitates in the larger interest of administration of justice that the court should take notice of. The averments set out in the contempt petition are vague and evasive, for, in paragraph 7 of the petition it is averred that the Sub-Divisional Officer Naraini wanted to give possession of the land to the lease-holders inspite of the order of this Court and in that anxiety he had issued orders to the police personnel to accompany him to the spot. No material has been brought on the record of this to substantiate the aforesaid assertions. On the petitioner's own showing the Sub- Divisional Officer and the other respondents refrained from interfering with the possession of the: applicant and had done no damage to the standing crops when the opposite parties were confronted with the stay order at the time of alleged incident and the villagers intervened in the matter. In paragraph 9 of the petition, it is averred that in the year 1990, Sub Divisional Officer, Banda wanted to disturb the possession of the applicant but on an application being moved before that officer along with the order of the High Court, possession of the applicant was left in tact. This, it appears to have happened again presumably as there was some change of incumbents. Simply because the applicant considers that he has been aggrieved by some action of the opposite party which, he considers high handedness, it would not be proper to Issue a notice for contempt to show cause. The applicant is not without a remedy. He could have approached the Collector but nothing of the kind was done. Even a First Information Report was not lodged. The contempt of Court is essentially a matter which concerns the administration of justice and dignity and authority of judicial tribunal. It is not a right of a party to be invoked for redressal of his grievances, nor such a jurisdiction can be availed as a matter of right. On the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as alleged in the contempt petition and bearing in mind that the possession of the applicant over the land in question was left it tact and no damage whatsoever had been done to the applicant. It is not a case for initiation of any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
(3.) THE petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly, rejected. Petition dismissed.;