Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 422 OF 2012 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2008                                                  Dineshan K.K. .. Petitioner(s)                   

  Versus

R.K. Singh & Anr. .. Respondent(s)/    Contemnors    

O R D E R             

  1.This  contempt  petition  is  filed  by  the  

petitioner  inter alia requesting this Court  to initiate contempt proceedings against the  respondent  Nos.  1  and  2  for  alleged  disobedience of the judgment and order passed  by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008,

Page 2

2

dated 04.01.2008.

2.The High Court while disposing of the writ  petition filed by the petitioner herein had  issued  certain  directions  to  the  Union  of  India  and  its  officer  to  re-designate  the  petitioner from the rank of Hawaldar (Radio  Mechanic) to Warrant Officer as recommended  by the Ministry of Home affairs and also to  extend the pay-scales as given to the rank  counter parts in the Central Reserve Police  Force (CRPF) and Border Security Force (BSF).  

3.Being aggrieved by the order and directions  issued by the High Court, the Union of India  and Anr. through their respective officer(s)  had filed Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008 before  this  Court inter  alia questioning  the  judgment  and  order  passed   by  the  Gauhati  High Court in Writ Petition No. 497 of 2001,  dated  11.02.2005.  The  alleged  contemnors

Page 3

3

herein Mr. R.K. Singh, Secretary, Government  of  India  and  Lt.  General  Ranvir  Singh,  Director General of Assam, Rifles were the  respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively in the  aforesaid appeal.  

4.This Court has dismissed the appeal and held  as under:

"On a conspectus of the factual  scenario noted above, we do not  find  any  infirmity  in  the  impugned directions given by the  High  Court,  warranting  interference.  There  is  no  merit  in  this  appeal  and  it  is  dismissed  accordingly  with  costs."

5.The petitioner before us, being of the view  that since the contemnors/respondents herein  have  not  complied  with  the  orders  and  directions issued by the High Court as well  as  by  this  Court  in  spite  of  lapse  of  considerable  period  of  time  from  the

Page 4

4

aforesaid judgment and order of this Court  and  hence  willfully  disobeyed  the  judgment  and  order  of  this  Court,  has  filed  this  contempt petition under Article 129 of the  Constitution of India read with Section 12 of  the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

6.The respondents have entered appearance and  also  filed  their  respective  counter  affidavits before this Court.

7.At  the  time  of  hearing  of  this  contempt  petition,  we  have  deliberated  on  two  questions:  firstly,  whether  the  contempt  petition  filed  by  the  petitioner  is  maintainable before this Court and secondly,  whether  the  petitioner  could  approach  High  Court which has disposed of the writ petition  and issued certain directions to the alleged  contemnors  for  the  grant  of  prayer  sought

Page 5

5

before us in this petition.  

8.The  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  complainant/petitioner,  Shri  Kumar  would  bring  to  our  notice  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Oil  and  Natural  Gas  Corporation Ltd. vs. S.B.I. Overseas Branch,  Bombay, (2006) 6 SCC 385 and submit that the  judgment and order passed by the High Court  has now merged with the orders passed by this  Court  when  this  Court  dismissed  the  civil  appeal filed by the petitioner and therefore,  this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain  the present petition as it is the order of  this Court which has been willfully disobeyed  by the respondents/contemnors.

9.We  have  carefully  perused  the  decision  of  this Court. A reading of the judgment would  certainly  indicate  that  when  the  civil

Page 6

6

appeals and the special leave petitions are  dismissed with reasons, the orders passed by  the  Courts  below  would  merge  with  the  judgment and order passed by this Court. The  said decision has been followed by this Court  in a catena of subsequent judgments of this  Court.

10. In  view  of  what  has  been  said  by  this  Court in the aforesaid decision, we cannot  hold that the judgment and order passed by  the  High  Court  has  not  merged  with  the  judgment and order passed by this Court when  the  civil  appeal  filed  by  the  complainant/petitioner was dismissed.

11. The first question having been answered,  the next question that would arise for our  consideration  and  decision  is  whether  the  contempt petition requires to be entertained

Page 7

7

by this Court or could this Court request the  High Court whose directions are said to have  been disobeyed by the respondents to consider  and decide the matter.   

12. We requested Shri K.K. Venugopal and  Dr.  Rajeev  Dhawan,  learned  senior  counsel  to  assist us in the matter. Their view on the  second question is that undoubtedly the order  passed  by  this  Court,  while  accepting  the  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  Courts  below,  would  merge  with  the  judgment  and  order passed by the Courts below. However,  this Court in exercise of its powers under  Articles 129, 136 and 142 of the Constitution  of  India  could  direct  the  complainant/petitioner  to  approach  the  High  Court and bring to its notice and knowledge  that their orders and directions have been  disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors.

Page 8

8

13. In  the  instant  case,  the  complainant/petitioner  had  approached  the  High  Court  for  certain  reliefs.  The  High  Court  has  granted  those  reliefs  to  the  petitioner and while doing so the High Court  has  issued   certain  direction(s)  to  the  respondents  to  do  a  particular  thing  in  a  particular  manner.  The  respondents,  namely,  the  Union  of  India  and  other  officers  disturbed by the order and directions issued  by the High Court had filed the special leave  petition  which  on  grant  of  leave  had  converted into civil appeal. This Court after  hearing the parties did not find merit in the  appeal and therefore, dismissed it.

14. We  are  mindful  of  settled  law  that  the  orders passed by the High Court would merge  with  the  order  passed  by  this  Court.  This

Page 9

9

Court  has  dismissed  the  appeal  only  and,  therefore, it is the directions passed by the  High Court which in fact have been allegedly  disobeyed  by  the  respondents/contemnors.  In  our  considered  view,  it  would  be  in  the  interest of justice and to lessen the burden  of  this  Court  in  the  current  scenario,  it  would  be  appropriate  to  request  the  High  Court  to  look  into  the  grievance  of  the  complainant, if a petition is filed before  them inter alia bringing to their notice and  knowledge  that  their  orders  and  directions  have been disobeyed. In our opinion, firstly,  this  exercise  would  be  beneficial  to  the  parties  because  they  were  before  the  High  Court  in  the  writ  petition  wherein  the  directions  were  issued  and  secondly,  by  entertaining  the  petitions  of  this  nature  wherein  this  Court  has  passed  an  order  of  dismissal  simplicitor  and  the  alleged

Page 10

10

contempt arises out of the order passed by  the High Court, this Court would saddle the  dockets with cases which could otherwise be  effectively  could  be  disposed  of  by  the  Courts below.

15. In view of the aforesaid aspects of the  matter, in our considered opinion, though we  hold that when the judgment and order passed  by the High Court has merged with the order  passed by this Court while disposing of the  civil  appeal,  we  direct  the  complainant/petitioner to file an appropriate  contempt petition before the High Court for  the alleged disobedience of the orders and  directions issued by the High Court within  two  months'  time  from  today.   If  such  a  contempt petition is filed, the High Court  would consider the same in accordance with  law after giving an appropriate opportunity

Page 11

11

of hearing to all the parties concerned.

16. With  these  observations,  the  contempt  petition is disposed of.

17. We clarify that we have not expressed any  opinion  on  the  merits  of  the  contempt  petition.

Ordered accordingly.

                       ....................J.              [H.L. DATTU]  

                       ....................J.                 [S.A. BOBDE]  

                  NEW DELHI, MARCH 11, 2014.