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