Dinesh Chandra Somani JUDGMENT
Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed u/Sec. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 assailing the order passed by the ld. Single Judge dt. 25.04.2014 holding the appellant guilty of alleged wilful disobedience of ex-parte orders dt. 24.01.2014 read with dt. 31.01.2014 and discarding the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant punished him with simple imprisonment of seven days.
2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for appreciation of the matter are that the writ petition was originally preferred by an educational institution - Shri Omkar Mal B.Ed. College, Alwar whose recognition was withdrawn by the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) in exercise of its power conferred u/Sec. 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short 'the Act, 1993'). Although, it was an appealable order u/Sec. 18 of the Act, 1993 to the Council but the writ petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 14944/2013 directly before the ld. Single Judge of this court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution assailing the order dt. 05.08.2013 and that came to be dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy of appeal provided u/Sec. 18 of the Act, 1993 before the Council constituted u/sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Act, 1993 vide order dt. 27.08.2013, which further came to be challenged by the writ petitioner in intra-court appeal - D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 874/2013 and that also came to be dismissed vide order dt. 13.09.2013 with liberty to the writ petitioner-institution to prefer appeal u/Sec. 18 of the Act, 1993 within seven days from 13.09.2013 (the date of order), it may be decided expeditiously but in no case later than two months.
3. After passing of order by the Division Bench of this Court dt. 13.09.2013, on 23.09.2013 appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner before the Council u/Sec. 18 of the Act, 1993 and that came to be decided by the Council vide order dt. 13.01.2014 with a direction to the Northern Regional Committee (NRC), Jaipur to cause inspection of new premises and pass speaking order in accordance with law. According to the appellant, copy of order dt. 13.01.2014 was received in the office of Northern Regional Committee at Jaipur on 30.01.2014
4. It may be relevant to note that Regional Committees are constituted by the Council u/Sec. 20 of the Act, 1993 and sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 20 of the Act, 1993 provides composition & constitution of Regional Committee. The Regional Director is the Convenor of the Regional Committee & he just facilitates the Regional Committee in transacting its business having no role to play in the decision making process of the Regional Committee.
5. After passing of order by the Appellate Body i.e. Council, New Delhi dt. 13.01.2014, fresh writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner-institution - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 780/2014 seeking a mandamus for further action to be taken by the NRC in compliance of order dt. 13.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Body i.e. Council, New Delhi. The later Writ Petition No. 780/2014 filed by the writ petitioner-institution came to be disposed of at the motion stage without notice to the respondents vide order dt. 24.01.2014 with a direction to the NRC to take action as directed by the Appellate Body i.e. Council, New Delhi vide its order dt. 13.01.2014 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Thereafter, further misc. application was filed by the writ petitioner-Institution being S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 11/2014 seeking clarification/modification in the order dt. 24.01.2014 that in place of three weeks, it may be substituted to one week and Misc. Application No. 11/2014 was also disposed of ex-parte by the ld. Single Bench of this Court vide order dt. 31.01.2014 and three weeks was substituted by one week for passing necessary orders by the Northern Regional Committee in compliance of order dt. 13.01.2014.
6. According to the appellant, both the ex-parte orders dt. 24.01.2014 & 31.01.2014 passed by the ld. Single Judge were served in the office of Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur on 03.02.2014 and since there was short of time and it was not possible/feasible to take further action in compliance thereof, the standing counsel for NRC was instructed to file application seeking extension of time for implementation of order passed by the ld. Single Judge dt. 24.01.2014 & dt. 31.01.2014 but it was informed that no such application was filed by the concerned counsel. By that time another Misc. Application No. 36/2014 was filed by the petitioner-Institution in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 780/2014, with the request to direct the respondents to allot students through counseling.
7. The appellant as Convenor of the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) placed the matter for consideration and decision of the NRC in its 225th meeting but because of non-availability & sufficiency of record, it was deferred on 25.02.2014 and posted for 01.03.2014. At this stage, in Misc. Application No. 36/2014 cognizance was taken by the ld. Single Judge against the appellant as to why he should not be punished for committing contempt of court vide its order dt. 11.03.2014.
8. In reference to the Misc. Application No. 36/2014 reply was filed by the NRC, Jaipur through their counsel on 12.03.2014 tendering justification for which time has been consumed in passing appropriate order. At the same time, it was further prayed that three months time may be granted for making the needful compliance as Convenor of the NRC and because of the contempt proceedings being initiated, request was made to the NRC for doing the needful. In furtherance thereof, emergent meeting of the NRC was held on 12.03.2014 and the Committee decided to cause inspection of the institution and in furtherance thereof vide order dt. 13.03.2014 the visiting team was constituted to cause inspection of the institution and further orders to be passed accordingly.
9. At least after the decision being taken by the NRC in its meeting held on 12.03.2014 and passing of the order dt. 13.03.2014 in furtherance thereof no further action was to be taken by the NRC or at least by the appellant as Convenor of the NRC and if at all any delay was caused it was not attributable to him and at least not deliberate but still it was in a given point of time was purged by the appellant and detailed affidavit was filed in response to the explanation sought by the ld. Single Judge dt. 11.03.2014 and at the threshold tendered unconditional apology and also explained that the appellant being Convenor of NRC, prepared agenda for consideration by the NRC for taking decision and transacting its business where the Convenor has no role to play in the decision making process or intervention in transacting the business of the Committee.
10. The ld. Single Judge after taking note of the material on record, even while taking suo moto cognizance vide its order dt. 11.03.2014 without any opportunity of hearing being afforded to the appellant, arrived to the conclusion that wilful disobedience of order of the court has been committed by the appellant and show cause was served upon him as to why he should not be punished for committing contempt of court. Further proceedings was initiated against the appellant only for punishment and not for tendering his justification as to what action being taken by him in compliance of ex-parte orders of the court dt. 24.01.2014 followed with 31.01.2014 and whether it was deliberate disobedience/defiance of order and the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant was not considered to be qualified and under order impugned dt. 25.04.2014 punished the appellant with simple imprisonment for seven days for committing contempt of ex-parte orders of the court dt. 24.01.2014 followed with 31.01.2014.
11. Counsel for the appellant submits that the ld. Single Judge while taking cognizance against the appellant under its order dt. 11.03.2014 has committed apparent error and no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to justify about the action being taken at his behest as the Regional Director & Convenor of the NRC, Jaipur in compliance of ex-parte orders dt. 24.01.2014 & 31.01.2014 and straight away he was held to be guilty for the alleged disobedience being committed by him and show cause notice was issued to him vide order dt. 11.03.2014 that why he may not be punished for committing contempt of court.
12. Counsel submits that the very procedure followed by the ld. Single Judge is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to justify about the action being taken at his behest as Convenor of the NRC in compliance of the ex-parte orders and taking cognizance against the appellant under order dt. 11.03.2014 was with limited opportunity to the appellant to justify what punishment should be imposed upon him for committing contempt of order of the court and this being a basic fundamental error committed by the ld. Single Judge, the order of punishment of simple imprisonment dt. 25.04.2014, in the given facts & circumstances, is not legally sustainable and deserves to be quashed.
13. Counsel for the appellant submits that Sec. 2(b) of the Act, 1971 defines 'civil contempt' where a finding has to be recorded that it was a wilful disobedience which has been committed by the person of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or it was a wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court and further submits that while cognizance being taken against the appellant by the ld. Single Judge vide its order dt. 11.03.2014, no finding was recorded of wilful disobedience and that could not be possible without opportunity of hearing being afforded to him and that apart counsel submits that since compliance was made by the NRC in its meeting held on 12.03.2014 and in furtherance of order dt. 13.03.2014 and unconditional apology was tendered by the appellant as Convenor of the NRC, without going into merits any further & taking responsibility on his shoulders to justify the action and thus in the given facts & circumstances at least it was not a case of wilful disobedience being committed by him as defined u/Sec. 2(b) of the Act, 1971 and passing further order of punishment of simple imprisonment by the ld. Single Judge under order impugned dt. 25.04.2014 needs to be interfered by this court.
14. Counsel submits that detailed affidavit has been filed giving complete justification as to when copy of the ex-parte order dt. 24.01.2014 followed with order dt. 31.01.2014 was served and what active steps were taken by the appellant as Convenor of the NRC in the matter and that apart at the very outset tendered unconditional apology apart from explanation at least in the given facts & circumstances, there was no material available on record which at all germane to hold that action taken by the appellant in compliance of order of the court was at all wilful disobedience which would constitute him of committing a civil contempt and in the given facts & circumstances passing of order by the ld. Single Judge impugned dt. 25.04.2014 punishing him with civil imprisonment is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed.
15. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that since action has been taken by passing order on 13.03.2014, Visiting Team was constituted to hold inspection and further action was taken by the NRC, he has no instructions in the matter to pursue the present appeal on behalf of the Institution.
16. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance also perused the material on record.
17. The law of Contempt of Courts is for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefined. While dignity of the court has to be maintained at all costs. The contempt jurisdiction which is of a special nature should be sparingly used. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction conferred on the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act.
18. This has also been settled that the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities and when it could be said to be wilful disobedience of the order, has been considered by the Apex Court in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj reported in MANU/SC/0040/2014 : AIR 2014 SCW 1218 at para 10 of the judgment, which reads ad infra:-
"10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful'. The word 'wilful' introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. 'Wilful' means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely". Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct".
19. It has been further considered by the Apex Court in Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran reported in MANU/SC/0078/2014 : (2014) 3 SCC 373. The relevant para-19 of the judgment reads ad infra:-
"19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above."
20. Taking note of the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, it was to be established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant as Regional Director and Convenor of the Northern Regional Committee has wilfully disobeyed the ex-parte orders of court dt. 24.01.2014 & 31.01.2014 of which suo moto cognizance was taken by the ld. Single Judge under its order dt. 11.03.2014 of wilful disobedience and calling upon him as to why he should not be punished for committing contempt of court and prior thereto no finding was recorded regarding the act of the appellant being a wilful disobedience of ex-parte orders of the court dt. 24.01.2014 & 31.01.2014
21. In the given facts & circumstances, taking note of the facts of the present case, we find that initially the ex-parte order was passed on 24.01.2014 disposing of the writ petition at the motion stage directing the NRC to make necessary compliance in terms of the order dt. 13.01.2014 passed by the appellate body - Council, New Delhi within three weeks for passing necessary orders after the order is served and on a subsequent misc. application No. 11/2014 that too was ex-parte disposed of vide order dt. 31.01.2014 and three weeks time was substituted to one week for making compliance of order of the Council i.e. appellate body dt. 13.01.2014 and according to the appellant both the ex-parte orders i.e. order dt. 24.01.2014 followed with 31.01.2014, were served in the office of the NRC on 03.02.2014 and immediately thereafter instruction was issued to the counsel to file application seeking extension of time for implementation of order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 31.01.2014 but that was not filed by the concerned counsel at the relevant time and when the matter again came before the ld. Single Judge on Misc. Application No. 36/2014 which was served in the office of the Northern Regional Committee on 21.02.2014 and the appellant as Convenor of the NRC placed the matter before the NRC in its 225th meeting held on 25.02.2014 but because of non-availability and sufficiency of record, it was deferred for 01.03.2014 where the appellant has no right of say as Convenor of the Committee and at this stage when the ld. Single Judge took suo moto cognizance holding the appellant guilty of committing wilful disobedience of the ex-parte orders of the court vide its order dt. 11.03.2014 and called upon him to appear in person on the next day without any loss of time a request was made by him to the NRC for holding of meeting and emergent meeting was held on 12.03.2014 wherein decision was taken to cause inspection of institution and in compliance thereof visiting team was constituted vide order dt. 13.03.2014. At the same time, detailed affidavit was filed by the appellant in response to the explanation sought by the ld. Single Judge taking cognizance against him vide order dt. 11.03.2014 and at the very outset he expressed unconditional apology and also explained his limited role to play as Regional Director & Convenor of Northern Regional Committee in the decision making process.
22. The appellant being Convenor of the Northern Regional Committee having no role to play in the decision making process of the Committee who was competent in taking decision in furtherance of order dt. 13.01.2014 passed by the appellate body i.e. Council, New Delhi passed on the appeal of the Institution preferred u/Sec. 18 of the Act, 1993 with a direction to cause inspection of the new premises of the Institution and passing speaking order in furtherance thereof it is indeed the Northern Regional Committee, constituted u/Sec. 20 of the Act, 1993, who has to take decision and as regards the present appellant is concerned being a Convenor of the NRC having no direct or indirect role to play in the decision making process and further action could have been taken by the appellant as Regional Director only after the Committee took a decision in its meeting held on 12.03.2014 & in furtherance thereof order dt. 13.03.2014 was passed by the appellant as Convenor of the Committee constituting a visiting team to cause inspection of the new premises of the institution and in furtherance thereof action has been taken as permissible in law.
23. The justification was tendered by the appellant in response to explanation sought by the ld. Single Judge vide order dt. 11.03.2014 detailing out the steps being taken by the appellant as Convenor of the NRC without any loss of time in compliance of ex-parte orders dt. 24.01.2014 & 31.01.2014 of which disobedience was alleged in the given facts & circumstances of the instant case and taking note of the explanation furnished, it cannot be said that there was any disobedience of the ex-parte orders dt. 24.01.2014 & 31.01.2014 being committed by the appellant, of which cognizance was taken by the ld. Single Judge vide order dt. 14.03.2014 what to say of wilful disobedience and that too without affording opportunity of hearing recording a finding of the alleged contempt being committed against the appellant for punishment and we find no reason of declining unqualified & unconditional apology tendered by the appellant in the event his explanation was not found to be acceptable.
24. The Explanation to Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 makes it clear that an apology tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional so long it is made bonafide. From the detailed explanation which has been tendered by the appellant, there appears nothing on record to suggest that the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the appellant as reflected from his explanation was actuated by reasons that are not bonafide and in our view deserves acceptance in the given facts & circumstances.
25. In our considered view the judgment of the ld. Single Judge in the given facts & circumstances is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
26. Consequently, the instant appeal deserves acceptance and is hereby allowed. The order of the ld. Single Judge impugned dt. 25.04.2014 is quashed & set aside. No costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.