ORDER
The Court
1. Heard Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length.
2. In the instant contempt application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, the petitioner Bihar Slate electricity Board has prayed for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the opposite party, namely, the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board for the alleged wilful disobedience of the order and direction passed by this Court dated 11.4.2001 and 10.7.2001 in LPA No. 256/2000.
3. The writ petitioner M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. has filed CWJC No. 223/2000 (R) challenging the action of the respondent (Petitioner herein) in disconnecting the supply of electricity in the premises of M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. and raising a compensatory bill for a sum of Rs. 40,39,50,747/- and further for a declaration that no pilferage of electricity was done by the writ petitioner. The said writ
application was disposed of on 27.1.2000 by a Single Judge of this Court and the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer was directed to consider the representation that shall be filed by the writ petitioner and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Court further directed for restoration of supply of electricity.
4. Being dissatisfied with the judgment passed in the writ application, the writ petitioner. M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. preferred letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 256/2000. A Division Bench of this Court, after some arguments, allowed the petitioner-appellant to withdraw the appeal and consequently the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Division Bench, however, modified the judgment dated 27.1.2000 only to a limited extent saying that adjudication of the dispute shall be done by the Chairman. JSEB in place of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Singh-bhum Area Electricity Board, Jamshedpur. The Division Bench clarified that except the aforesaid limited modification there will be no variation/change in the judgment under appeal. The Division Bench further directed to dispose of the matter within six weeks and the parties were directed to fully co-operated with the Chairman in the proceeding. It was further directed that the Chairman shall devise his own procedure for the conduct of the proceeding but the procedure so devised shall be in conformity with the principles of natural Justice.
5. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid direction the representation of the writ petitioner was considered by the Chairman by adopting procedures and final order was passed. We are informed that the petitioner has already challenged the final order passed by the Chairman by filing a writ petition being WPS No. 5750/2001 which is pending.
6. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Chairman has completely ignored the direction of the Court and adopted his own procedure in the matter of disposal of the representation which amounts to wilful disobedience of the Court. Learned counsel relied upon two Division Bench judgments of the Patna High Court in the cases of Shri Nawal Kishore Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, 1982 PLJR 376 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sheo Shankar Mishra, 1995 (2) PLJR 875.
7. There is no dispute with regard to maintainability of the contempt application. The only question is whether in the facts of the case, this Court should exercise its discretion by issuing a rule for the alleged non-compliance of the procedure provided in the order referred to hereinabove recently in the case of Om Prakash Agrawal v. T.K. Mit-tal, AIR 2000 SCW 722, the Apex Court has held that jurisdiction of the Court to initiate contempt proceeding and to punish for contempt is discretionary. It is for the Court to act if such disobedience is brought to their notice. The Court cannot be compelled to initiate contempt proceeding merely because there is some disobedience of the order.
8. In the instant case, as noticed above, the legality and validity of the order passed by the Chairman is subjudice before this Court. Merely because there is some irregularity committed by the Chairman in the matter of disposal of the representation, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion by issuing a rule of contempt. This application is therefore, dismissed.
9. Needless to say that we have not expressed our opinion with regard to correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Chairman and, therefore, this order will not, in any way, prejudice the case of the petitioner in the writ application.