- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, against the order/judgments of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 17-12-2002 and 13-1- 2003 passed in the Contempt Petition No. 2613 of 2002.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellant. None is present on behalf of the respondents, although name of Shiv Prasad Pandey, in person, is shown in the cause list. From the order sheet also it appears that this matter was listed on 22-12-2004, when also Sri Shiv Prasad Pandey did not appear, despite his name shown in the cause list. Today also he is not present. WE however, proceed to hear and decide this matter even in the absence of Shiv Prasad Pandey. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner-respondent filed Writ Petition No. 31538 of 2002 with the grievance that the construction of the roads etc. in Village Kurhwa, Post Pipri, Block Suriyawan, District Sant Ravidas Nagar has not been made properly and as such the guilty persons should be penalized. A Division Bench of this Court heard learned Counsel for the parties and disposed of the writ petition vide judgment dated 5-8-2002 with a direction that the representation of the petitioner-respondent dated 13-8-2002 shall be considered by the Commissioner, Mirzapur in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and other interested parties and appropriate order shall be passed recording reasons within six weeks. However, no decision was taken on the representation and thus he filed Contempt Petition No. 2613 of 2002 wherein notice was issued on 17- 12-2002. The Commissioner, Mirzapur thereafter by a detailed order dated 5-1-2003 decided the representation of the petitioner after hearing him. It is submitted that since the direction of the Division Bench has been subsequently carried out and the reason for delay was also explained, thus the contempt proceeding should not have been proceeded further in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and ought to have been dropped. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the record including the orders under appeal passed by Hon'ble Single Judge, we find that while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 31538 of 2002, Division Bench of this Court issued only following direction to the Commissioner, Mirzapur, vide judgment dated 5-8-2002 : "the representation filed by the petitioner on 13-8-2002 shall be considered by the Commissioner, Mirzapur in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and other interested parties and appropriate order shall be passed recording reasons within six weeks. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation. "
(3.) IT appears that the copy of the representation was submitted by the petitioner-respondent to the Commissioner, Mirzapur on 14- 10-2002 whereupon he directed an enquiry to be made on various issues raised in the representation. Consequently an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division. IT is stated that during the enquiry the petitioner- respondent was present and briefed the Deputy Development Commissioner, Vindhyachal on all aspects of the matter. Spot inspection was also made. Thereafter the Commissioner passed a detailed order on 5-1-2003 considering various issues raised by the petitioner-respondent in his representation. All these facts were stated by the appellant in the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Single Judge after receipt of notice. However, the Hon'ble Single Judge in his order dated 13-1-2003 has proceeded to consider various other aspects of the matter which in our view, are beyond the jurisdiction of the Contempt Court since the Court in Contempt jurisdiction has to consider only whether the direction or judgment of the Court passed in regular proceeding has been complied with or not. IT cannot go beyond the directions contained in the order, disobedience whereof is complained. Whether the authority rightly passed the order pursuant to the order passed by the Court or procedure adopted is correct is not the matter to be seen by the Court dealing with contempt matter. For that purpose, it is open to the aggrieved person to approach the Court in regular proceedings by filing a fresh writ petition etc. In J. S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar & others, (1996) 6 SCC 291, the Apex Court observed that pursuant to the direction issued by the Court once an order is passed by the authority, it provides a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in appropriate forum, and the allegations that the direction has not been complied with correctly, properly and legally would not be entertained in a contempt matter since it cannot be said to be a wilful violation of the order. In the said case, writ petition was decided by the High Court declaring seniority list as illegal and after quashing the same, Government was directed to redetermine inter-se seniority as per direction contained in the said judgment. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction a fresh seniority list was prepared by the Government, whereafter, contempt proceeding was initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the seniority list has not been prepared as per direction of the Court. The Hon'ble Single Judge entertaining contempt matter though held that there is no wilful disobedience but further gave direction to the Government in the mater of preparation of seniority list observing that the same was not in accordance with the order of the Court. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Division Bench wherein the aforesaid directions were set aside. In appeal before the Apex Court, the order of the Division Bench was upheld. The Apex Court held - "it is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there rises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re- exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. ";