1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 290 of 2011
With
I.A. No. 2312 of 2011
The Jharkhand Rajya Project Balika
Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak/Karmchari
Sangh & Others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shankar, S.C.-I.
------
Order No. 04 Dated 13th October, 2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the order
passed by Full Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4783 of
1996 dated 07.12.1999, upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 6626-75/2001 vide order dated
03.01.2006
, has not been complied with by the State
Government.
3. In the contempt petition it has been submitted that
earlier also contempt petition was submitted and that has
been withdrawn and, thereafter, this contempt petition has
been submitted. This contempt petitioner has been placed
before the Full Bench in view of the fact that earlier order,
disobedience of which has been alleged, was passed by the
Full Bench of this Court.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the Alam Committee was constituted in pursuance of the
2
directions given in the orders referred above and
thereafter, Chugh Committee was constituted vide order
dated 20.06.2010. The Chugh Committee recommended in
favour of the writ petitioners and that recommendation has
not been rejected by the State Government and the State
Government has thereby not implemented the direction
given by the Full Bench of this Court, upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that after
considering both the reports, a decision was taken by the
State Government on 09.02.2011, copy of which has been
placed on record along with reply to the contempt petition
as Annexure-A, and it is submitted that this decision was
taken consciously by the State Government to implement
the direction given by the Courts i.e., by the Full Bench of
this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and that is
clearly mentioned in Annexure-A.
6. The petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit
and annexed the copy of the opinion given by the Advocate
General dated 20.08.2011 and recommendation of the Law
Department of the Government dated 20.08.2011 (above
two dates are not clear and legible in the annexures but we
presume that these opinions were given subsequent to the
Government decision dated 09.02.2011).
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and we are of the considered
3
opinion that after the decision of the Court referred above,
the Government has taken a decision on 09.02.2011. Before
this decision, the reports of Alam Committee and Chugh
Committee both were before the State Government. After
Government’s decision, if any other opinion has been given
by any of the officer of the Government or office of the
Government, that will not render the decision of the State
Government a non est or can be said to be a decision not
attained finality.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted
that the validity of Annexure-A cannot be challenged in a
contempt jurisdiction.
9. In view of the above reasons, if petitioners want to
raise their grievance that in the decision dated 09.02.2011
the Chugh’s committee report has not been taken into
consideration or because of the subsequent opinion some
other decision should have been taken, at the most, the
writ petitioners could have approached the Court by way of
filing a writ petition. It is also pertinent to mention here
that so far as direction to follow any particuler committee’s
recommendation is concerned, that is not in any of the
directions issued by the Court and, particularly, the
grievance of the writ petitioners is that the Chugh’s
Committee recommendation has not been followed by the
State Government, for that also, learned counsel for the
petitioners failed to show us that any direction was given in
4
any of the above orders to follow the Chugh’s Committee
report, therefore, in limited jurisdiction under the contempt
proceedings, we are not in a position to address the issues.
10. We are of the considered opinion that no case is made
out for the contempt or disobedience of the orders passed
by this Court and the petitioners are free to avail any other
remedy, if it is available to them. This contempt petition is
dismissed and notices are discharged.
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.)
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
(R.R.Prasad, J.)
Birendra/Sudhir