Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 147 of 2019) arising out of Writ Petition No. 4190 of 2018. The original judgment dated 22nd February 2019 directed the State Government to adhere scrupulously to the transfer policy dated 27th February 2017. Subsequently, on 10th June 2019, the contempt court passed an order directing that the claims of the three original petitioners (teachers) be processed first in the current transfer process before considering other eligible teachers. The applicant, Aseem Gupta, Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, filed a review application (M.C.A. No. 650 of 2019) contending that the contempt order went beyond the original judgment and violated the transfer policy's order of precedence. The respondents (original petitioners) opposed the review, arguing that the order was consistent with the judgment. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the contempt order indeed created a conflict with the transfer policy and the original judgment. The court held that the order dated 10th June 2019 suffered from a mistake apparent on the face of the record and required review. The court allowed the review application and set aside the impugned order, directing that the transfer process be conducted strictly in accordance with the transfer policy and the original judgment.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Review of Contempt Order - Mistake Apparent on Face of Record - The applicant sought review of a contempt order dated 10th June 2019, arguing that it granted relief beyond the original judgment and conflicted with the transfer policy. The court considered whether the order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 10th June 2019 in the contempt petition suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record and requires review.
Final Decision
The review application is allowed. The order dated 10th June 2019 passed in Contempt Petition No. 147 of 2019 is set aside. The transfer process shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the transfer policy dated 27th February 2017 and the original judgment dated 22nd February 2019.
Law Points
- Review of contempt order
- mistake apparent on face of record
- transfer policy precedence
- scope of contempt jurisdiction
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 236
M. C. A. No. 650 of 2019 in Contempt Petition No. 147 of 2019 (Arising out of WP No. 4190 of 2018)
Sunil B. Shukre, S. M. Modak
Sunil Manohar, N. P. Mehta, S. P. Dharmadhikari, R. K. Joshi, W. G. Paunikar
Aseem Gupta, Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
Shri Bandu Bhauji Sidam, Shri Dhanpal Ramkrishna Misar, Shri Naresh Baburao Choudhari, Dr Vijay Rathod
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review application against an order passed in a contempt petition arising out of a writ petition concerning teacher transfers.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought review of the order dated 10th June 2019 passed in Contempt Petition No. 147 of 2019.
Filing Reason
The applicant contended that the contempt order granted relief beyond the original judgment and conflicted with the transfer policy.
Previous Decisions
Original judgment dated 22nd February 2019 in WP No. 4190 of 2018 directing adherence to transfer policy; contempt order dated 10th June 2019 directing preferential processing of petitioners' claims.
Issues
Whether the order dated 10th June 2019 suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the contempt order conflicts with the original judgment and the transfer policy.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant: The contempt order grants what was not granted in the original petition and violates the transfer policy's order of precedence.
Respondents: The contempt order is consistent with the original judgment and does not warrant review.
Ratio Decidendi
A contempt order that grants relief beyond the scope of the original judgment and conflicts with the underlying policy suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be reviewed.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.
He submits that by the order dated 10th June 2019, what was not granted in original petition (WP No. 4190 of 2018), has been given to the petitioners and it is not permissible in law.
Procedural History
WP No. 4190 of 2018 was disposed of on 22nd February 2019 with directions to adhere to transfer policy. Contempt Petition No. 147 of 2019 was filed alleging non-compliance. On 10th June 2019, the contempt court passed an order directing preferential processing of petitioners' claims. The applicant filed M.C.A. No. 650 of 2019 seeking review of that order.
