High Court Cannot Exercise Writ Jurisdiction To Have Supreme Court Judgment Complied With: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction in a petition seeking compliance of a Supreme Court order.The Court placed reliance on re: Ajaypal Singh and others vs State of U.P. and others, wherein a division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that “in case of non-compliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court the power is vested in Supreme Court itself...
The Allahabad High Court has refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction in a petition seeking compliance of a Supreme Court order.
The Court placed reliance on re: Ajaypal Singh and others vs State of U.P. and others, wherein a division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that “in case of non-compliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court the power is vested in Supreme Court itself to take action in contempt and not by this Court.”
Petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition before Supreme Court against cancellation of their appointment. On non-compliance of the order passed therein, contempt petition was filed which was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to prefer appropriate representations before the authorities and the same shall be considered by the authorities by a reasoned and speaking order. A second contempt was filed as the representations were not being decided by the authorities. Supreme Court was of the view that it would not be possible for the Court to keep issuing directions. However, it was observed that the representations be dealt with at the earliest.
Petitioners approached the High Court in writ jurisdiction claiming that although directions had been issued in their petition by the Supreme Court, in a separate batch of similar petitions, the Supreme Court quashed cancellation of appointment order and directed for continuation of service. It was contended that various similarly placed persons have been granted relief in writ jurisdictions. Consequently, the petitioners must be extended the same benefits.
The question of before the Court was when an order has been passed by Supreme Court with respect to the petitioners as to whether non-compliance of the same can be seen by the High Court.
The bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin held that High Court cannot direct for compliance of any judgment of the Supreme Court.
“...once the judgement has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is non compliance of the same as such it is always open for the petitioners to file a contempt petition but there cannot be any occasion for the High Court to have the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court complied with.”
“As an abundant precaution” the Court noted that the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, specifically held that “in case of non-compliance of its directions, the concerned police officers, apart from departmental action, shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be initiated before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.” However, since no such directions were issued in the present case, the High Court could not entertain the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Deepak Dewvedi And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy (Basic Education) Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lucknow And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7450 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 382
Counsel for Petitioner: Sharad Pathak, Piyush Pathak
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh, Ran Vijay Singh