Whether Contempt power is attracted in case of disobedience of administrative orders of charity commissioner?

It cannot be disputed that the Apex Court has held

that   the   Assistant   Charity   Commissioner   appointed   under

Section 5 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is a ‘Court’ for

:the purposes of the Contempt of Courts Act.  The question is

while   exercising   jurisdiction   under   Section   41A   of   the

Bombay   Public   Trusts   Act,   whether   the   Charity

Commissioner   acts   as   a   ‘Court’   and   exercises   judicial   or

quasi judicial power.  This Court has already taken a view in

the case of Damodar v. Dy. Charity Commissioner, reported

in  2011(6)   Mh.L.J.   431,   and  Vanmala  v.  Dy.   Charity

Commissioner,   reported   in  2012(3)   Mh.L.J.   594,   that   the

power conferred by Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts

Act  is   purely   an   administrative   power   and  it  is   neither   a judicial or quasi judicial power. Hence, in such proceedings,

the Charity Commissioner does not act as a  ‘Court’ within

the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act.  The provision of

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not attracted.:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.227 OF 2012

 Budhasao Sitaramsao Dhenge, V V.G. Katgaye,

Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

Citation;2013(2) MH L J 220

1. The  complaint  in this   contempt   petition  is   about

willful   disobedience/breach   of  the   orders   dated   28­5­2012

and   4­6­2012   passed   by   the   learned   Joint   Charity

Commissioner,   Nagpur,   below   Exhibits   20   and   31

respectively in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 41A

of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 in the proceedings,

i.e. Application No.3 of 2010.  

2. Assuming   that   there   is   non­compliance   or

disobedience   of   such   order,   the   question   is   whether   the

provision   of  Section   2(b)  of the  Contempt   of Courts  Act,

1971   is   attracted   or   not.   The   reliance   is   placed   by   Shri

Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, upon the

decision of the Apex Court in the case of  K. Shamrao and

others  v.  Assistant   Charity   Commissioner,   reported   in

(2003) 3 SCC 563.   He has urged that the Apex Court has

held   that   the   Assistant   Charity   Commissioner   appointed

under Section 5 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is a

‘Court’ for the purposes of the Contempt of Courts Act.  He

further submits that Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts

Act does not make any distinction between the orders passed

in   exercise   of   administrative   power   and   judicial   or   quasi

judicial power.  Hence, the provision of Section 2(b) of the

Contempt of Courts Act is attracted.

3. The provision of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of

Courts Act being relevant, is reproduced below :

“2(b).  “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience

to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or

other  process  of  a Court   or wilful  breach   of  an

undertaking given to a Court.”

It is obvious from the aforesaid provision that it is only the

judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of

the Court or willful breach of the undertaking given to the

Court, which attracts civil contempt.  Necessarily, therefore,

it is the  direction  or the  order  passed in  quasi judicial  or

judicial  proceedings  by a  ‘Court’, which would attract the

definition of ‘civil contempt’ under the Contempt of Courts

Act.    It is not the direction  or  order  passed in exercise of

administrative power, which is contemplated by Section 2(b)

of the Contempt of Courts Act.

4. It cannot be disputed that the Apex Court has held

that   the   Assistant   Charity   Commissioner   appointed   under

Section 5 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is a ‘Court’ for

the purposes of the Contempt of Courts Act.  The question is

while   exercising   jurisdiction   under   Section   41A   of   the

Bombay   Public   Trusts   Act,   whether   the   Charity

Commissioner   acts   as   a   ‘Court’   and   exercises   judicial   or

quasi judicial power.  This Court has already taken a view in

the case of Damodar v. Dy. Charity Commissioner, reported

in  2011(6)   Mh.L.J.   431,   and  Vanmala  v.  Dy.   Charity

Commissioner,   reported   in  2012(3)   Mh.L.J.   594,   that   the

power conferred by Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts

Act  is   purely   an   administrative   power   and  it  is   neither   a

judicial or quasi judicial power. Hence, in such proceedings,

the Charity Commissioner does not act as a  ‘Court’ within

the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act.  The provision of

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not attracted.

5. In   view   of   above,   the   contempt   petition   is

dismissed. 

Print Page