“Sometimes bureaucrats have arrogance, they don’t want to go before High Courts”, observed the Supreme Court yesterday while dealing with Jammu and Kashmir administration’s grievance against J&K&L High Court’s issuance of a show-cause notice against its officer(s) in a contempt case.
Briefly put, the plea was filed assailing two orders of the J&K&L High Court (one by a Single Bench and another by a Division Bench). The High Court had directed the authorities to consider paying within 2 months such amount as was admittedly payable to the respondents (contractors) for supply of plants.
When the payment was not made, the respondents had filed the contempt petition and a Single Judge issued show-cause notice to the UT administration. Instead of explaining to the single judge that the respondents had either been paid or were not entitled to any payment, the authorities opted to file an intra-court appeal, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the High Court decisions, the UT administration approached the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta observed that the UT authorities should have tendered an explanation before the Single Judge.
“in our considered opinion, it is the bounden duty of the petitioners to explain to the ld. single judge before whom contempt proceeding is pending that the respondents have either been paid their due amount or they are not entitled to such payment…as soon as the needful is done on behalf of the petitioners, we request the ld. single judge to examine the stand that may be taken on behalf of the petitioners on merits and then proceed in accordance with law”.
Insofar as the Division Bench of the High Court observed in its order that the Single Judge may conduct a roving enquiry, the top Court clarified that the enquiry shall be in accordance with law and be confined to individual claims.
During the hearing, Justice Datta posed to Additional Solicitor General Brijendra Chachar (for J&K administration), “The concerned officer has been asked to attend virtually. He can explain it to the Court if his counsel is not in a position to explain. You should not have gone for a Division Bench appeal. Nobody has [yet] held that you are in contempt…”.
When the ASG emphasized that a show-cause notice has been issued, the bench retorted, “so what?”. “Why can’t they go and explain? Every show-cause notice we will start examining here then!” remarked Justice Kant.
Justice Datta, in similar vein, said “first thing a Court is required to do on receiving a petition is issue show-cause. So you mean to say no show-cause can be issued to the bureaucrats?”
Subsequently, on the aspect of examining whether there was contempt, Justice Kant said, “why should we examine? High Court will examine it, before which contempt is pending. We are not sitting here as advisors, that we will tell the High Court on behalf of these babus that contempt is made out or not”.
Justice Datta further noted that if punishment is infact inflicted, the petitioner has option of appealing it before Division Bench of the High Court. Live Law
