OM PRAKASH JAISWAL V. D.K MITTAL & ANR BY: THARANI. M

OM PRAKASH JAISWAL V. D.K MITTAL & ANR
 
AUTHORED BY: THARANI. M
2nd YEAR
SCHOOL OF LAW
SASTRA UNIVERSITY
 
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1632 of  1990
PETITIONER: OM PRAKASH JAISWAL
            Vs.
RESPONDENT: D.K.  MITTAL & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2000
BENCH:R.C. Lahoti, K.T.Thomas
 
 
INTRODUCTION:
In the case of Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal, a disagreement develops regarding the demolition of structures on a plot of property. The appellant seeks possession protection, but the respondents allegedly breach a court order by demolishing the structures. The appellant then files a contempt of court application. The main issue before the court is whether the actions were initiated within the one-year limitation period prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court's interpretation of Section 20 and subsequent decisions have important significance for the case.
 
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
The case involves a dispute over the demolition of certain constructions on a piece of land between the appellant and the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, and Allahabad Development Authority. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to prevent the respondents from dispossessing or interfering with their possession. After the respondents gave an undertaking not to disturb or demolish the construction until the writ petition was disposed of, the application was dismissed.
Later, the employees of the respondents allegedly demolished the appellant's construction in violation of the court order. The appellant then filed an application seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents. The Court issued a show-cause notice to the respondents as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. However, the court did not sign an order to this effect on 16.12.1987.
 
On 6.1.1988, the court passed an order to issue notices to the respondents to show cause why they should not be punished for disobeying the court's order dated 19.12.1986. The court also listed the case for hearing on 28.1.1988. The question before the court is whether this order dated 6.1.1988 amounted to the initiation of proceedings for contempt.
 
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT:
The primary issue, in this case, is whether the bar created by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is applicable to the case. Section 20 of the Act provides that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The question before the court is whether the proceedings initiated by the appellant on 6.1.1988 fall within the one-year limitation period set out in Section 20.       
 
ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES:
APPELLANT:
The appellant argued that the proceedings were initiated on 6.1.1988 when the court issued notices to the respondents to show cause why they should not be punished for disobeying the court's order dated 19.12.1986. According to the appellant, this notice amounted to the initiation of proceedings for contempt. The appellant further argued that the proceedings were not barred by Section 20 of the Act because they were initiated within one year of the alleged contempt.
 
RESPONDENT:
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the proceedings were not initiated until the court signed an order to that effect, which did not happen until after the expiry of one year from the date on which the contempt was alleged to have been committed. According to the respondents, the proceedings were therefore barred by Section 20 of the Act.
 
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION THAT DEDUCED THE VERDICT:
1)BARADA KANTA MISHRA V. MR. JUSTICE GHATIKRUSHNA MISHRA
2)ADVOCATE GENERAL ANDHRA PRADESH V. A.V KOTESHWARA RAO
2)KISHAN SIGNH V. T. ANJAIAH CHIEF MINISTER
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE COURT:
court's interpretation in this case was that the mere issuance of a show-cause notice to the respondents did not amount to the initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court held that until the proceedings were actually initiated, the bar created by Section 20 of the Act applied, which meant that the application filed by the appellant seeking initiation of proceedings against the respondents was liable to be rejected.
 
The court also clarified that the outcome of the main writ petition filed by the appellant, in which the respondents had given an undertaking not to disturb or demolish the construction until the writ petition was disposed of, would have a material bearing on the discretion of the court to proceed or not to proceed with the proceedings for contempt. The court left this aspect to be taken care of by the High Court.
 
VERDICTS:
The verdict in this case is that the appeal is allowed, which means that the decision of the High Court to dismiss the proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is set aside. The proceedings are restored to the file of the High Court, which shall hear the parties and then proceed according to the law.
 
The court also clarified that during the course of the hearing, they had asked the learned counsel for the parties about the result of the main writ petition wherein the undertaking was given on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the parties were not duly instructed to assist this Court on this aspect. The findings arrived at by the Court in the main case, if the same has been disposed of, would have a material bearing on the discretion of the Court to proceed or not to proceed ahead with the proceedings for contempt. However, the court left that aspect to be taken care of by the High Court.
 
CRITICISM:
1.Technicality over substance: Critics may argue that the court's decision to dismiss the application on the basis of a technicality (Section 20 of the Act) rather than the substance of the case (whether or not the respondents were in contempt of court) is a narrow interpretation of the law that fails to address the underlying issue at hand.
 
2. Delayed justice: The fact that the case was pending for several years and that the court ultimately dismissed the application may be seen as a failure of the justice system to provide timely and effective redress to the appellant.
 
3. Limited scope of contempt law: Some critics may argue that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is overly broad and gives the court too much discretion in deciding what constitutes contempt. They may also argue that the Act does not provide enough protection for citizens against violations of their rights by powerful entities such as government bodies.
 
4. Lack of accountability: Critics may argue that the court's decision not to pursue contempt proceedings against the respondents for violating the court's order sets a dangerous precedent and sends a message that those in positions of power can act with impunity without fear of consequences