Single-Judge Allowing Withdrawal With Liberty To Revive Contempt Plea During Pendency Of Appeal Is Unnecessary Intrusion In Appellate Jurisdiction: P&H HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that single judge passing order allowing to withdraw the contempt plea with liberty to revive it during the pendency of appeal is unnecessary intrusion into the appellate jurisdiction.

While hearing a contempt plea the single judge had noted that "...counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition at this stage with liberty to seek revival, if required, subject to final outcome of the aforesaid contempt appeal.Ordered accordingly..."

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said the passing of the order by the single bench "is unnecessarily intrudes into the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this Court...especially when the supra appeal seeking the invalidatings of the order rendered on...rather is under the active consideration of this Court."

The division bench said that since it opined during the pendency of the appeal that "no contempt proceedings were drawable against the present appellants, therefore, it appears that the learned Contempt Bench, despite the contempt appeal...being subjudice before this Court, has passed the order (supra) merely to escape the effects of this Court recording findings (supra), wherebys this Court has declared illegal the makings of an order by the Contempt Bench, wherebys imposition of costs has been made upon the appellants."

These observations were made while hearing an appeal against the order of a single judge wherein in a contempt plea it directed the authorities to pay a litigation cost of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner and join the proceedings.

The contempt plea before the single judge was filed alleging that despite High Court order, the authorities failed to release pension of the petitioner.

After examining the submissions, the Court opined that the contempt Bench, even without framing a charge appertaining to the alleged commission of civil contempt, and, also subsequently without proceeding to consider the justifiable extenuating cause, as would become echoed in the reply on affidavit, wherebys the contemnor may be amenable for being discharged, rather reiteratedly has proceeded to conclude that civil contempt has been committed.

Resultantly, in terms of the High Court ruled, the Contempt Bench has, "at the very threshold rather derogated from the...stated established procedure, thus in its recording a finding, that the present appellants indulged in contumacious conduct," it added.

The Court said that the "repeated passing of orders" by the single judge with our adherence to the established procedure is "deeply"  disturbing the judicial conscience of the Court.

Speaking for the bench Justice Thakur opined that, "the supra breaches vis-a-vis the norms of propriety by the learned Contempt Bench concerned, as emanate(s) from despite earlier orders being passed by this Court, in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, thus wherebys orders alike the present one, thus became quashed, yet repeatedly thus alike the earlier quashed orders, but orders rather becoming re-rendered, by the learned Single Bench of this Court. The said does not well augur for preserving either the norm of propriety nor the supra departures augur well qua the necessity of instilling faith and public confidence in the administration of justice."

In the light of the above, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order.

Title: Amit Kumar Aggarwal and others v. Bimla Devi

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana

Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Siddhant Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 10

Click here to read/download the order