#allahabadhc Archives

2 Apr

Appeals against the Contempt orders of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) available only before the Supreme Court and not High Court: Allahabad High Court

Blog #allahabadhc, #Appeals, #Article226, #CAT, #centraladministrativetribunal, #ContemptofCourtOrders, #HighCourt, #Jurisdiction, #Section17ofAdministrativeTribunalAct, #Section19ofContemtofCourtAct, #SupremeCourt, #writpetition

Case title: Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan & Ors. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors

Case no.: Writ Application No. – 602 of 2024

Order on: March 22nd, 2024

Quoram: Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh

Facts of the case

The petitioners who were initially appointed as Short Term Medical Officers had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench and sought to issue an order to the respondents for their appointment as regular Assistant Medical Officers. The CAT ruled in favour of the petitioners. However, the petitioners alleging non-compliance of the order by the respondents again approached the CAT by filing a contempt petition under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Tribunal noting a substantially compliance of the order by the respondents disposed of the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners appealed before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 by citing Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (AT Act) in conjunction with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CC Act).

Legal Provisions

Article 323A – It empowers the Parliament to enact the law providing for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals and specifies the jurisdiction and powers of such Tribunals including their power to punish for contempt.

Section 14 & Section 15 of the AT Act – It specifies the jurisdiction, powers and authority for the Central Administrative Tribunal and State Administrative Tribunal respectively.

Section 17 of the AT Act – It empowers the Tribunal to punish for contempt of court and exercise its power similar to the High Court with regard to provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Section 12 of the CC Act – It provides Punishment for Contempt of Court.

Section 19 of the CC Act – It provides that the appeals against the orders of Tribunal shall lie as a matter of right to the Bench of at least two Judges of High Court, where the contempt order is passed by the Single Judge and it shall lie to the Supreme Court where the order is passed by the Bench.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court addressing the question of maintainability of writ petition filed before the High Court against the orders passed under the Contempt of Courts Act delved into Article 323 A, Sections 14 & 17 of the AT Act and Sections 11, 12 & 19 of the CC Act. It drew a distinction between the orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 14(1) of the AT Act and the order passed under Section 17 of the AT Act. The Bench noted that the while there is no statutory remedy of appeal available under the former, the latter provides the same by virtue of Section 19 of the CC Act. Further, it noted that since the contempt proceeding under Section 17 of the AT Act is dealt with by a bench of not less than two members, the orders passed would be appealable only before the Supreme Court. Hence, it ruled that any order or decision of the Tribunal under the Contempt of Courts Act shall be appealable only to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of the order.

The Court heavily relied on the precedence laid down in the cases of T. Sudhakar Prasad Vs Government of A.P. and L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and held that the orders of the Tribunal under the Contempt of Courts Act shall be appealable only before the Supreme Court and no writ petition against the same shall be maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 / 277 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it dismissed the present petition citing the lack of maintainability. This judgement thus, throws light on the jurisdictional scope of appeals arising from contempt proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and clears line on the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters regarding contempt orders issued by the Tribunal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

20 Oct

Liking A Post Doesn’t Constitute to Publishing Provocative Material: Allahabad High Court

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #allahabadhc, #Liking, #Peace, #Provocation, #Social Media

Title: Mohd Imran Kazi v State of U.P. and Another

Citation: Application U/S 482 No. – 31091 of 2023

Decided On: 18/10/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

Introduction:

The present application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet , cognizance order as well as non-bailable warrant passed in Case of State vs. Sami and others. The applicant had been accused of posting certain provocative messages on social media.

Facts of the case:

The applicant was alleged to post a certain provocative message on the social media resulting in assembly of 600-700 persons of Muslim community leading to serious threat to breach of peace. But, contrary to the allegation there doesn’t exist any material against the applicant according to Cyber Crime Cell of Agra.

The applicant had only liked a post of Chaudri Farhan Usman, in which t was mentioned that they would assemble before the collectorate to hand over the memorandum to Hon’ble the President of India.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

From perusal of Section 67 of the I.T. Act, it is clear that it is punishable only when any person publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which tends to deprave and corrupt persons who read, see or hear aforesaid material. Just Liking a post doesn’t constitute to publishing.

Even otherwise Section 67 of the I.T. Act is for the obscene material and not for provocative material. The court did not find any material proving the applicant guilty. Hence the application was allowed.

Written By: Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgment

16 Oct

Contempt Application Against Central Government for Alleged Non-Compliance in ‘Padma Awardees’ Endorsement Case

Prime Legal

Blog #allahabadhc, #contempt

Title: Moti Lal Yadav vs. Sri Rajiv Gowba & Another

Date of Decision: October 9, 2023

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2833 of 2023

CORAM Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Introduction

This case revolves around a contempt application filed by Mr. Moti Lal Yadav against Sri Rajiv Gowba, Cabinet Secretary of the Central Government of India, and another party. The contempt application is based on the alleged non-compliance of an earlier order passed by the court, which was issued in the context of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Mr. Yadav concerning the participation of ‘Padma Awardees’ in endorsements of products harmful to public health. The PIL requested the Central Consumer Protection Authority to take action against the involved celebrities. This judgment reviews the proceedings related to the contempt application.

Facts of the Case

Mr. Moti Lal Yadav, a practicing lawyer, filed a PIL in 2022, raising concerns about ‘Padma Awardees’ participating in advertisements for products harmful to public health.

The PIL sought the Central Consumer Protection Authority to impose penalties on the celebrities involved in these advertisements and to have them deposit their earnings into the relief fund of the Government of India.

The court’s earlier order, dated 22.09.2022, directed Mr. Yadav to approach the Central Government, specifically the Cabinet Secretary, and make representations regarding the conduct of ‘Padma Awardees’ and their participation in misleading advertisements.

Mr. Yadav complied with the court’s order and submitted representations to the Cabinet Secretary and the Chief Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority.

However, the authorities did not take any action, leading Mr. Yadav to file a contempt application, claiming non-compliance with the court’s order.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The court reviewed Mr. Yadav’s actions in compliance with the court’s earlier order. He had submitted representations to the Cabinet Secretary and the Chief Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority. Additionally, notices were issued to certain Pan Masala companies by the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The court noted that while Mr. Yadav had initiated the process of compliance with the order by approaching the relevant authorities, the response and actions taken by these authorities were not detailed in the contempt application. The court recognized that certain steps had been taken, but it required further information and clarification on the actions or decisions made by these authorities regarding the issues raised in the PIL.

The court emphasized that, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a comprehensive statutory mechanism exists for addressing grievances related to consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and false or misleading advertisements. This mechanism allows for actions against individuals and companies involved in such practices. The court concluded that the matter required consideration and, therefore, directed notices to be issued to the opposite parties. These notices demanded an explanation as to why full compliance with the court’s order had not been achieved. The court also gave Mr. Yadav the opportunity to file a reply or objection to the affidavit of compliance submitted by the Central Government’s counsel. The case was listed for the next hearing on November 29, 2023, with the expectation that further information and responses from the authorities would be provided by that date.

In summary, the court recognized that Mr. Yadav had initiated compliance with the court’s order, but further details and actions taken by the authorities were required to determine full compliance. The court also highlighted the availability of statutory mechanisms to address issues related to consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and misleading advertisements. The case would continue to be heard to assess the extent of compliance with the court’s order.

Written by- Tarishi Verma

Click to view judgement