AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.â€"The petitioners have filed this petition, styling it to be under Section 94 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir,
seeking passing of appropriate orders in Contempt Petition No. 410/2013, which admittedly, stands disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court on 22.10.2013. The petitioners had filed writ petition, OWP No. 1183/2012, seeking quashment of orders dated 22.06.2012 whereby
their applications for issue of passports had been rejected. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 26.04.2013 passed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court with direction to the Passport Officer to consider the case of the petitioners afresh. The Passport Officer again sent the case of
the petitioners to the Inspector General of Police, CID, J&K, for report. After obtaining the report from the Inspector General, the Passport
Officer passed order dated 10.06.2013 intimating to the petitioners that their case was found to be attracting Sections 6(2)(b)(C) and (d) of the
Passports Act, 1967. Their issue of Passports were, accordingly, refused.
Claiming that order dated 10.06.2013 violated the Court order dated 26.04.2013, the petitioners filed contempt petition No. 410/2013 on the
ground that the Passport Officer was not to send the case of the petitioners again to the Inspector General of Police, CID, for report, but had to
consider the case on the basis of the observations made in the judgment.
The contempt petition was listed on 22.10.2013 and dismissed in the following terms:
Respondents have filed the statement of facts along with the consideration order forming annexure R1 to the statement of fact. In the light of the
statement of facts consideration stands accorded, therefore, contempt petition does not survive. Dismissed. Rule discharged. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to invoke the appropriate remedy and challenge the consideration order, if so advised.
The instant petition has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the order dated 22.10.2013 was passed at the back of the petitioners and that
the Court did not appreciate the grounds taken in the contempt petition. It is urged that a mistake has thus crept in order dated 22.10.20.13 which
needs to be corrected in terms of the powers exercisable by the High Court under Section 94.
The petition on the face of it is not maintainable. It is noticed that the contempt petition was listed before, and dismissed, by the very same
Bench which had passed the order dated 26.04.2013, implementation whereof is sought by the petitioners. There could not have been any person
in a better position to interpret the import and connotation of the order dated 26.04.2013 than its author itself. The orders dated 26.04.2013 and
22.10.2013, it is reiterated, have been passed by one and the same Bench. Obviously, therefore, it cannot lie in any body's mouth that the Bench
that passed order dated 22.10.2013 has committed an error in understanding the import and/or connotation of order dated 26.04.2013. The
petitioners seem to be interpreting the order of the Court dated 26.04.2013 to their liking.
In any case, the provision of Section 94 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be used as a camouflage to seek review and/or
modification of the order, when there is no such mistake forthcoming from the order in question. It needs to be mentioned here that there is no
review available in contempt jurisdiction for correcting errors on face of record. Even an appeal as well is not available against the kind of order
passed by the learned Coordinate Bench. The petitioners through the instant petition seek to achieve that what is otherwise not available to them in
law. The petition is hopelessly misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed.