on a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India
to punish for contempt of court must be exercised in
accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of the
Act, petition to initiate action for civil contempt as defined
under Section 2(b) of the Act can be presented only by a
party aggrieved, except where the Court which passed the
order has given liberty to third parties, who are not parties to
the order, to initiate action for contempt of court. We may
state that Section 14 of the Act relates to procedure where - -
contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court
and Section 15 of the Act relates to procedure in the case of
a criminal contempt; they are exceptions to the rule of locus
standi relating to civil contempt stated above.
6. The complainant is not a party to the order in his
personal capacity. As the complainant has presented this
petition in his personal capacity and in his personal name and
not as administrator of the Masjid, he cannot be said to be a
‘party aggrieved’. It is relevant to state that, in the order, no
liberty is given to any third party to initiate action for
contempt of court. Hence, the petition as brought is not
maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. This order will not
come in the way of administrator of the Masjid to initiate
action in the matter in accordance with law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED : 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
AND
MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CCC No.1149/2016 (CIVIL)
SRI SHAMSHUDDIN Vs SRI HARIS M.Y.
Citation: 2016 SCC ONLINE KAR 6468
1. Whether a third party has locus standi to present a
petition to initiate action for civil contempt under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act’) is the short question
for consideration in this case.
2. This petition is presented to initiate action for civil
contempt, alleging willful disobedience of the order of this
Court dated 24.02.2016 made in Writ Petition No.8589/2016;
operative portion of the order reads as follows:
“17. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I
mould and grant relief to the petitioner in
W.P.No.8589/2016 as follows:
(i) If the Muslim Jamath Committee proposes to
hold the Uroos, it shall be at liberty to do so,
but it shall not take any amount from the hundi
or take any contribution from the devotees. If
the devotees make the voluntary contributions,
the same are to be put into the hundi only. The
expenses on holding the Uroos celebrations are
to be borne by the Management Members of
the said Committee. If they hold the Uroos,
they have to spend from their pocket. - -
(ii) The first respondent Karnataka State Board of
Wakfs and the third respondent administrator
shall jointly ensure that no body collects the
contributions or gifts from the devotees
unauthorizedly and/or utilize them. The
collections and contributions by, for and on
behalf of the Masjid are to be spent only for
running its day-to-day administration in the
letter and spirit of this Court’s order, dated
24.11.2015.
(iii) I reiterate the direction granted by this Court,
by its order, dated 24.11.2015 to the first
respondent to complete election process for
the purpose of constituting Management
Committee.
(iv) Whether the Uroos can be held after February
or whether two Uroos can be held in respect of
the same Sufi Saint are the questions to be
determined by the first respondent; this Court
does not have the expertise to decide such an
issue.”
3. We have heard Sri Vivek S.Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the
record. The complainant namely, Shamshuddin, who is a
Government servant, has presented this petition in his
personal name and in his personal capacity and not as
administrator of the Masjid referred to in the order extracted
above. Administrator of the Masjid was arrayed as
respondent No.3 to the writ petition. The complainant was
not the administrator of the Masjid as on 03.10.2016, the
date of presentation of this petition. He was not a party to
the aforesaid writ petition in his personal capacity. It is - -
stated that he worked as administrator of the Masjid from
10.09.2015 to 09.04.2016 and is presently working as
Assistant Director of Land Records, Madikeri.
4. On being asked as to how this contempt of court
petition presented by the complainant in his personal
capacity and in his personal name is maintainable, the
learned Senior Counsel submitted that any person can move
the Court to initiate action for contempt of court. We are
unable to accept the submission.
5. It is a settled position in law that the power conferred
on a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India
to punish for contempt of court must be exercised in
accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of the
Act, petition to initiate action for civil contempt as defined
under Section 2(b) of the Act can be presented only by a
party aggrieved, except where the Court which passed the
order has given liberty to third parties, who are not parties to
the order, to initiate action for contempt of court. We may
state that Section 14 of the Act relates to procedure where - -
contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court
and Section 15 of the Act relates to procedure in the case of
a criminal contempt; they are exceptions to the rule of locus
standi relating to civil contempt stated above.
6. The complainant is not a party to the order in his
personal capacity. As the complainant has presented this
petition in his personal capacity and in his personal name and
not as administrator of the Masjid, he cannot be said to be a
‘party aggrieved’. It is relevant to state that, in the order, no
liberty is given to any third party to initiate action for
contempt of court. Hence, the petition as brought is not
maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. This order will not
come in the way of administrator of the Masjid to initiate
action in the matter in accordance with law.
CCC dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment