Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Deotala, through its President Bhaurao Chavan, sought to start an Ashram School/Balak Ashram at Latur. The proposal was inadvertently granted at Osmanabad instead of Latur. The petitioner challenged this by filing Writ Petition No. 4654/2009 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. A Division Bench of the High Court passed an order directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's proposal for Latur. Instead of complying, the respondents filed an appeal against that order before the Supreme Court without obtaining a stay. The petitioner then filed the present contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the Division Bench's order. The respondents argued that they had merely filed an appeal, which was their legal right, and that there was no willful disobedience. The Court, after hearing both sides, held that the order of the Division Bench did not contain any specific direction to maintain status quo or to stay the operation of the order. Therefore, the mere filing of an appeal did not constitute contempt. The contempt petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Filing of Appeal - The petitioner alleged that the respondents committed contempt by filing an appeal against the order of the Division Bench without obtaining a stay, thereby disobeying the order. The Court held that mere filing of an appeal does not amount to willful disobedience of the order, as there was no specific direction to maintain status quo or stay of operation. The contempt petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-4)
B) Contempt of Court - Jurisdiction - High Court - The Court observed that the order of the Division Bench did not contain any direction to the respondents to maintain status quo or to stay the operation of the order. Therefore, the respondents were not in contempt by filing an appeal. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by filing an appeal against the order of the Division Bench without obtaining a stay, thereby allegedly disobeying the order.
Final Decision
The contempt petition is dismissed. The Court held that the respondents did not commit contempt of court as the order of the Division Bench did not contain any direction to maintain status quo or stay of operation, and mere filing of an appeal does not constitute willful disobedience.
Law Points
- Contempt of court requires willful disobedience
- mere filing of appeal against order does not constitute contempt
- no automatic stay on filing appeal
- specific direction needed for status quo
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 469
Contempt Petition No.324 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.4654 of 2009
Mr. N. P. Patil (Jamalpurkar) for petitioner; Mr. D. V. Tele, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Deotala, through its President Shri Bhaurao s/o Anandrao Chavan
Sanjay Chande, Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Maharashtra State; Bajirao Jadhav, Commissioner, Women and Child Development, Maharashtra State, Pune; Umakant Birajdar, District Women and Child Development Officer, Latur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a Division Bench order by filing an appeal without obtaining a stay.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to punish the respondents for contempt of court for allegedly disobeying the order of the Division Bench.
Filing Reason
The respondents filed an appeal against the order of the Division Bench without obtaining a stay, which the petitioner claimed amounted to willful disobedience.
Previous Decisions
The Division Bench of the High Court had passed an order in Writ Petition No.4654/2009 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's proposal for starting an Ashram School at Latur.
Issues
Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by filing an appeal against the order of the Division Bench without obtaining a stay.
Whether the order of the Division Bench contained any specific direction to maintain status quo or stay of operation.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondents deliberately disobeyed the order by filing an appeal without obtaining a stay, which amounts to contempt.
Respondents argued that they merely exercised their legal right to appeal and there was no willful disobedience as the order did not contain any direction to maintain status quo or stay.
Ratio Decidendi
Mere filing of an appeal against an order does not amount to willful disobedience of the order unless the order specifically directs the party to maintain status quo or stay the operation of the order. Contempt requires willful disobedience, and the absence of such a direction means no contempt is made out.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner herein wanted to start the Ashram School/Balak Ashram at Latur.
The Division Bench of this Court passed an order directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's proposal for Latur.
Instead of complying with the order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Supreme Court without obtaining a stay.
The order of the Division Bench did not contain any direction to the respondents to maintain status quo or to stay the operation of the order.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4654/2009 challenging the government order granting permission at Osmanabad instead of Latur. The Division Bench passed an order directing consideration of the proposal for Latur. The respondents filed an appeal before the Supreme Court without obtaining a stay. The petitioner then filed Contempt Petition No.324/2009 alleging contempt. The contempt petition was heard and dismissed by the High Court on 14th January 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
