Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the charges of contempt of court, observing that the undertaking given by the State counsel on the instructions of the official was not competent to give that undertaking.

A case was filed seeking directions to conduct Kanungo examination for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar, but the same was rejected after undertaking given by the State counsel on the instructions of the Inspector, Director of Land Registration. It will be carried out within two months. The charge of contempt of court was made because the exam was not held within the time presented to the Court.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said: “no willful or willful disobedience of the order has occurred…, otherwise it depends on the receipt of prima facie defective instructions and their subsequent successful implementation which was subsequently referred to this Court, but without apparent care and prudence.”

The panel also observed that this initiative “lacks credibility” as the Inspector had no authority to instruct the State’s attorney.

He was also of the opinion that the Single Judge had made the decision to frame the charge of contempt of court in an extremely superficial manner.

“The learned Contempt Bench has clearly mismaneuvered not only proceeding crudely on the appropriate mitigating circumstance, resulting in a most sloppy overlooking of the justifiable mitigating circumstance in question, but has then also proceeded to make a bad categorical finding that : The court held that the order (above) was willfully disobeyed.

These observations were made while the Inspector General was hearing an appeal against a single judge’s order framing charges under the Contempt of Court Act for willful disobedience to undertakings given by the Director of Land Record to conduct departmental examination within two months for the promotion of Naib Tehsildar. .

The panel said that the single judge overlooked that the ministry’s justification that the officials were busy with election duty was justified, and that the attempt lacked authority.

He also stated that “the worst prolongation of trauma and suffering that appellants will face must be eliminated at this stage.”

Stating that there was some merit in the appeal, the Court acquitted the authorities of the charge of contempt of court.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional AG Haryana, Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Senior DAG, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG and Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the Respondent.

Title: TVSN Prasad et al / Resham Singh

Click here to read/download the order