Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Dec 25: The State High Court quashed the trial court’s order with the observation that the trial court while passing the impugned order has acted away from its limits, power and jurisdiction which is not vested to trial court.
Taking cognizance in a contempt petition by the trial court which under law is not in its jurisdiction, the High Court said that the subordinate courts do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of contempt or itself initiate proceedings on a contempt petition or try it or proceed to decide it finally.
“I am of the considered opinion that, in the instant case, the learned Sub-Judge (CJM), Srinagar, having commended and conducted the contempt proceedings and proceeded to finally decide the same, has acted beyond its bounds, authority and jurisdiction”, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey said.
Court further observed that it needs to bear in mind that contempt proceedings are essentially a matter which concern the administration of justice and are intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened. Contempt jurisdiction is not to be invoked for redressal of grievances.
“This Court in this petition is not sitting in appeal over the order passed by the learned trial court, nor is this a writ petition under Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This, as mentioned at the very outset of this judgment, is a petition filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If this Court had the jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the impugned order and proceed to legally analyse it on the touch stone of established law, given the reasoning recorded therein by the learned Sub-Judge (OM), it would not withstand the scrutiny of law even for fraction of a second”, Court said.
Court while setting aside the order of trial court said that the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court has power of general superintendence to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their duty. “In terms of the Section 104 of State Constitution and Article 227 of Indian Constitution this court has power to see that subordinate courts do what their duty requires them to do and that they do it in a legal manner. This power does not involve the responsibility for correctness of their decisions either on fact or on law”, reads the order.
It has been clarified that if only there is a flagrant abuse of the elementary principles of justice or alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989. Thus, the law provides that if there is contempt of any court, subordinate to the High Court, it is the High Court alone which has the power to punish, for such subordinate to the High Court cannot take cognizance and initiate proceedings to punish for contempt of itself, the question of conducting trial of an application for contempt and taking a decision thereon is far remote.
“This petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the Sub-Judge (CJM), Srinagar, in File No.226/Misc titled M/s ACE Enterprises v. R.K. Arora & Ors., is set aside with direction to the court concerned to act in the matter in accordance with law”, court directed to trial court and declared the appointment of the arbitrator and the proceedings conducted thereof and any award passed by him (arbitrator) as non-est in the eyes of law.
Follow our WhatsApp channel