Chair.West Ben.Admin.Tribunl.& Anr vs Sk.Monobbor Hossain & Anr

against the members of the State

Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved by these

observations, the appellants are before us in

this civil appeal.

1 3) A Contempt Petition came to be filed by the

petitioner in W.P.S.T. No.47 of 2009. The

allegation in the complaint was that though

the High Court had directed the Tribunal to

advance the hearing of the application filed

before it, the same had not been complied with

by the Tribunal and had not passed appropriate

orders on merits of the application filed by

the petitioner.

4) On entertaining the Contempt Petition, the

Court had issued notices to the members of the

State Administrative Tribunal. They had

offered their explanation, explaining the so

called lapses on their part and further, had

offered unconditional apology by stating that,

if for any reason, the court comes to the

conclusion that there is some disobedience of

the directions issued by the Court, the same

may be condoned in the light of the

unconditional apology offered. They also

undertook to follow the directions that they

had allegedly flouted as soon as the Tribunal

2

resumes sittings after the summer vacations.

5) We find that the High Court graciously accepts

the unconditional apology offered, but states

in its order that the members of the Tribunal,

who are former Judges of the High Court, ought

not to have disrespected the directions issued

by the High Court and while saying so, certain

remarks are also made against the performance

of the Judges as members of the Tribunal. The

appeal is filed before this Court for

expunging those remarks and observations.

6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties

to the lis.

7) This Court in R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik,

(2000) 4 SCC 400, has observed:

"7. We may reiterate that the weapon of

contempt is not to be used in abundance

or misused......Discretion given to the

court is to be exercised for

maintenance of the court's dignity and

majesty of law......"

8) In Suresh Chandra Poddar v. Dhani Ram, (2002)

1 SCC 766, it is held:

3 "1. This is an instance of how a

Tribunal vested with the powers to

punish for contempt of court became

oversensitive in using such powers.

Time and again this Court has cautioned

as to when and in what circumstances

contempt of court jurisdiction is to be

exercised. Such a power is not intended

to be exercised as a matter of course.

Courts should not feel unduly touchy

when they are told that the orders have

not been implemented forthwith. If the

court is told that the directions or

the order of the court has been

complied with subsequently, albeit

after receipt of notice of contempt, we

expect the courts to show judicial

grace and magnanimity in dealing with

the action for contempt."

9) In P.K. Singh v. S.N. Kanungo, (2010) 4 SCC

504, this Court opined:

"21. After reaching the conclusion that

the violation is neither willful nor

deliberate, the High Court should have

at once dropped the contempt

proceedings and could not have accepted

the unconditional apology tendered by

the appellant nor could have imposed

costs on the appellant. In any view of

4

the matter, the High Court, after

accepting the unconditional apology

tendered by the appellant, should not

have imposed costs on the appellant for

negligence and reckless manner in which

it had allegedly acted in the instant

case."

10) The tenor of the dicta of this Court on the

topic is crystal clear. This Court has, time

and again, asserted that the contempt

jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for

the purpose of upholding the majesty of the

judicial system that exists. While exercising

this power, the Courts must not be hyper-

sensitive or swung by emotions, but must act

judiciously. In Dinabandhu Sahu v. The State

of Orissa (1972) 4 SCC 761, this Court very

pertinently observed that "(i)it is no part

of the judicial function to be vindictive or

allow any personal or other considerations to

enter in the discharge of its functions..."

11) With this background, let us examine the

appeal presently before us.

5 12) We have perused the orders passed by the High

Court while disposing of the Contempt

Petition. In our view, there is some

justification for the High Court to have

initiated the contempt proceedings against the

appellants, but at the same time the High

Court, in order to maintain its dignity and

majesty of law, could have avoided making some

of the remarks and observations against the

functioning of the members of the Tribunal.

The Judges are also mortals and sometimes, the

behaviour of another mortal may not be

palatable to them. It is in this type of

situation they are expected to rise to the

occasion and avoid passing disparaging

remarks. This would reflect their learning

magnanimity and maturity, particularly when

they accept the unconditional apology offered

by the contemnors.

6 13) Accordingly, we allow this appeal and expunge

all those remarks/ observations made by

learned Judges in the course of their order.

Ordered accordingly.

...................J.

(H.L. DATTU)

...................J.

(ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 29, 2012.

7