The Punjab and Haryana High Court said the contempt court should refrain from taking action when the compliance order is challenged in appeal.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma said that, “the action for contempt must be framed sparingly, and must be avoided as a measure to compel the alleged erring litigant to comply with certain instructions or orders, especially when the relief granted by the Court. it becomes appealed, after which the result of the remedy used by the alleged errant litigant is rather awaited.”

The court added that the courts should use the contempt power with “immense care”, “as the ultimate objective of raising a capable contempt petition so as to ensure that the majesty and dignity of self-speakable mandatory orders/directions are maintained standing orders issued by the courts”.

These observations were made during the trial of an appeal against an order bringing an action for contempt of the authorities for failure to comply with a decision of a High Court.

Deputy Director (Statistics) Department of Industries and Commerce, Anil Kumar has been dismissed from service. A petition challenging the termination was filed, the Court set aside the termination order and ordered the employee to issue a new order. The authorities found that the employee did not fully fulfill the eligibility criteria and Kumar was again dismissed from service and the High Court order was also challenged.

In this context, a contempt petition was filed based on non-compliance with the High Court’s decision. The sole judge judging the recognition of the contempt reason opined that “no basis can be found in the claims made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner, by only attacking the order to take the floor dated 22.04.2024 through the new application, is not entitled to the benefit of salary arrears, as he contended, that the remedies before the Contempt Court and the Writ Court are distinct and separate.”

“The petitioner can always challenge the fresh order to take the floor by filing a civil writ petition, however, due to the lack of effective execution of the order issued in the previous written petition, he has the option of invoking the jurisdiction of contempt citing willful and intentional non-compliance”, he added the single judge.

The order of the single judge was challenged in the present proceedings before the division.

After hearing the objections, the divisional court held that the single judge should have awaited the outcome of the appeal and the admission of the contempt plea at this stage was “premature, in addition to a misconceived contempt claim”.

The Court also answered whether the Contempt Court can substitute itself into an Execution Court and also when an appeal against the relevant order/order is sub judice.

Answering the question in the negative, the Court referred to RNDey versus Bhagyabati Pramanik and others ((2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 400), to emphasize that, “We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt must not be overused or misused. Normally. , cannot be used for the execution of the decree or the implementation of an order for which an alternative way of appreciation of the Court is provided is to be exercised for the maintenance of the dignity and majesty of the law of the Court.”

The Tribunal held that the single trial court erred in taking action and “substituted itself, in addition to substituting itself in the Title Court, whereas only the Title Court was the sole depository of a competent jurisdiction, for to decide the tenacity of the request made by the present respondent”.

Considering the above, the appeal was allowed.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana

Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana and Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Vir Sharda, Advocate for the Respondent.

Title: Anand Mohan Saran and others vs. Anil Kumar

Click here to read/download the order