AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Mr.Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A):
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
The present Contempt Petition has been instituted alleging non-compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 050/932/2015.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the directions contained in the order under contempt have since been complied with. Learned counsel appearing for the Patna respondents has also confirmed that the said directions of this Tribunal have been duly complied with.
Thus, on the basis of the submissions made by both sides and with their consent, there is no surviving grievance regarding implementation of the order passed in the Original Application. It is well settled that the jurisdiction in contempt is essentially concerned with
“securing compliance of the order of the Tribunal”(that can also be seen under the provisions of section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act); and
examining whether “there has been willful disobedience of the order of the Tribunal”.
At the same time, this Tribunal is conscious of Rule 6 of the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992, which ordinarily provides that every proceeding for contempt shall be dealt with by a Bench of not less than two Members. Rule 6 of the CAT (Contempt of Courts) Rules, 1992 is being reproduced as under:
“Rule 6: Taking cognizance.-Every proceeding for contempt shall be dealt with by a Bench of not less than two Members: Provided where the contempt is alleged to have been committed in view of, presence or hearing of the Member/(s), the same shall be dealt with by the Member/(s) in accordance with section 14 of the Act”.
The present order is confined to recording the admitted position that the order under contempt has already been complied with and therefore, no further proceeding is being conducted. The present order does not undertake any adjudication upon the merits of the allegation of contempt, does not record any finding of guilt or exoneration of any alleged contemnor, and does not issue any substantive or coercive direction.
In the circumstances, requiring the matter to remain pending solely for the purpose of placing it before a Bench of two Members, when no further proceeding is required, would result in an unnecessary prolongation of the adjudicatory process without serving any purpose other than wastage of time.
Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 may also be referred to that is being reproduced as under:
“24. Order and directions in certain cases. The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.”
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in an order passed on 14th February 2025 in Contempt Petition (Civil) in Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 477/2021 in the matter of Tirthankar Basu & Ors. Petitioner(s) Versus Nivedita Shukla Verma & Ors. Alleged Contemnor/Respondents has closed contempt proceedings after being satisfied that the order under contempt had been complied with and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending.
It is accordingly considered appropriate, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, to bring the proceedings to an end at this stage. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as adjudication upon any allegation of willful Patna disobedience, nor as an expression of opinion on any issue beyond the fact that the directions contained in the order under contempt have already been complied with.
In view of the aforesaid position, no further proceedings survive in the present Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is, accordingly, dropped as having become unnecessary in view of compliance of the order. Notices stand discharged.
No order as to costs.