IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.        2613      OF     2012   (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NO.29392 OF 2010)

CHAIR.WEST BEN.ADMIN.TRIBUNAL.& ANR ...APPELLANTS                  VERSUS SK.MONOBBOR HOSSAIN & ANR          ...RESPONDENTS

O     R     D     E     R   

1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the judgment  

and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta  in C.P.A.N. No. 50 of 2010 arising out of  W.P.S.T. No.47 of 2009 dated 19.05.2010. By  the impugned judgment and order, the learned  Judges of the High Court, though having  accepted the unconditional apology offered by  the contemnors, have passed some remarks  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