LPA would lie against an interlocutory order passed in contempt proceedings: DB
JKUT (Jammu), August-26-2021-( JNF):- A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar while dismissing the LPA filed by . K. Singh, IFS, Administrative Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, holds that Letters Patent Appeal would lie against an interlocutory order passed in contempt proceedings even if they do not purport to decide any lis, right or issue between the parties finally.
This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been filed by B. K. Singh, IFS, Administrative Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, J&K, challenging the orders dated 19th October 2020, 20th November 2020 and 11th December 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dealing with the contempt petition CPSW No. 380/2018 arising out of judgment and order dated 12th February 2015 passed by the writ court.
During the course of hearing AAG Aseem Sawhney argued that the contempt proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the scheme for appointment on the post of Rehbar-i-Taleem has been abandoned by the Government in the year 2018. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude the selection for thepost under the said scheme. The contempt proceedings have been initiated beyond the period of limitation of one year prescribed and as such are barred by time. The Robkar issued is in violation of the Contempt Rules of the High Court.
DB observed that it is important to refer to the order dated 5th August 2011 passed by the writ court deciding SWP No. 1908/2010 Shahnaza Parveen & Anr. v. State of JK & Ors. The said writ petition was disposed of by the court with the direction to the respondents therein to take the selection process to the logical end in accordance with the rules and the guidelines governing the matter having due regard to the case set up by the petitioners and the objections to the tentative select list. 7. Subsequently another writ petition SWP No. 2159/2011 was filed by the same parties Shahnaza Parveen & others for completing the process of selection for engagement as Rehbar-i-Taleem, Zonal Gender Coordinator for newly upgraded SSA School under the SSA Scheme as their names figured in the notification published in the newspaper Srinagar Times on 2nd October 2010. The said writ petition was a continuation of the earlier cause of action referred to in the previous petition which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 3rd December 2011 by observing that the judgment and order of the court dated 5th August 2011 passed in SWP No. 1908/2010 has not been complied with and the Executive Authorities are duty bound to implement the same. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 therein was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be dealt with in law for not complying with the judgment of the court.
DB further observed that in short, the direction of the court to conclude the process of selection and to bring it to its logical end was sought to be implemented by initiating proceedings for contempt. It may be noted that though the basic order against which contempt has been filed is dated 12th February 2015 but it relates back to the order dated 5th August 2011 wherein for the first-time directions were issued to the official respondents to conclude the selection process in accordance with the rules and guidelines governing the matter. The scheme for appointment of Rehbar-i-Taleem has been done away with in the year 2018, meaning thereby that it remained in operation upto 2018. There appears to be prima facie no justification for not implementing the orders of the court so as to complete the process of selection during the period 2011 to 2018 or even from 2015 to 2018.
DB further observed that notwithstanding the above, a glance to the various orders passed by the contempt court would reveal that by the first order dated 19th October 2020, the contempt court directed to array the present Commissioner/Secretary to the Government School Education Department as a party to the contempt proceedings and to apprise him with the status of the case. The 2nd order dated 20th November 2020 impleads the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, School Education Department B.P. Singh as respondent No. 4 in the array of parties. The 3rd order impugned in the appeal is dated 11th December 2020 wherein he has been directed to remain personally present before the court on the next date of hearing to explain his position along-with other alleged contemnors. None of the above orders passed by the contempt court decides any lis between the parties or adjudicates upon any rights of the parties so as to bring the above orders within the periphery of a “judgment” to enable the appellant to maintain the Letters Patent Appeal. Even the subsequent orders passed in the contempt proceedings and brought on record by means of a miscellaneous application nowhere decides any right of the parties.
DB said that the case with which we are dealing is quite distinct on facts from the aforesaid case. In the present case, the High Court on contempt side has not issued any additional direction and has not improved upon the earlier direction issued by the writ court vide its order dated 12th February 2015 passed in SWP No. 2542/2012 Shahnaza Parveen & Ors. v. State of JK & Ors. Accordingly, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the above decision of the Supreme Court nowhere lays down as of principle that a Letters Patent Appeal would lie against an interlocutory order passed in contempt proceedings even if they do not purport to decide any lis, right or issue between the parties finally. With these observations Court dismissed the LPA as it is not maintainable. JNF