Thakur Ajit Singh and Others vs S.K. Mohanty and Others

P. Sam Koshy, J.—By way of the instant contempt petition the petitioners have alleged that the respondents have not complied with the order dated 4th April, 2014 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 42 of 2011. Grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners had initially filed a writ petition (c) No. 7222 of 2009 which was disposed of by the Single Bench of this High Court on 27.9.2010 holding that "petitioner No. 3 is entitled to exemption/refund of the amount of tuition fee, as per circular dated 30.11.1989 (Annexure P-1), which has been fixed by the State Government w.e.f. the date, CIMS was taken over by the State Government and it became a Government Medical College."

The State has preferred Writ Appeal No. 42 of 2011 along with other bunch writ appeals before the Division Bench of this High Court challenging the order dated 27.9.2010 which came up for hearing on 4th April, 2014. After hearing the submissions put forth by all the parties, the writ appeals preferred by the State were finally dismissed by the Division Bench holding that "On due consideration of the entire material available on record, we do not find any infirmity in the views taken by the writ Courts in the above writ petitions. The writ appeals, filed by the State, therefore, are liable to be dismissed, and are hereby dismissed."

Admittedly, the writ appeals were disposed of on 4th April 2014 and the State still has time for filing an appeal against the order passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No. 42 of 2011 and other connected writ appeals if the State feels aggrieved by the said order.

Record shows that immediately after dismissal of the writ appeals, petitioner No. 3 have moved an application/representation before the respondents claiming for refund of the tuition fee. By letter dated 24.5.2014, respondent No. 1 had intimated one of the students i.e. petitioner No. 3 that the State has directed to file SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court for which the process is going on.

It is this order dated 24.5.2014 passed by respondent No. 1 against which the petitioners have preferred the instant contempt case holding that the same is contemptuous. Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 should not have given such an letter intimating that he has already instructed the Office to prefer an appeal. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that by the said letter what the respondents meant is that since the State has already directed to file SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents would not comply the order passed by the Court and therefore contempt proceedings should be drawn against the contemnors.

The said contention submitted by the petitioners perhaps would not be proper at this stage for the reason that the order in the writ appeals was passed only on 4.4.2014 and as on date there is still period of limitation left for the State to prefer an appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Obviously, the State has to be given reasonable time for compliance of an order and if they are aggrieved by the said order, they should be given sufficient time to prefer an appeal against the same. In the instant case, when the period of limitation is still available to the State for preferring an appeal and if they choose so, it cannot be said that the non-compliance of the order passed in the original writ petition would amount to deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondents. Thus, at this stage, no contempt proceedings is made out against the respondents.

Needless to mention that the petitioners would have the right of filing a contempt petition only if the respondents do not act upon the decision of the Writ Court within the reasonable time period without there being an appeal preferred by the respondents. Accordingly, the instant contempt case being premature at this stage, the same is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioners.