The Allahabad High Court in the case Deepak Dewvedi And 4 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy (Basic Education) Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lucknow And 4 Others observed and has refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction in a plea moved wherein seeking compliance of a Supreme Court order.
The court in the case placed reliance on re: Ajaypal Singh and others vs State of U.P. and others, wherein it has been held by the division bench of Allahabad High Court that in case of non- compliance of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court the power is vested in Supreme Court itself in order to take action in contempt and not by this Court.
Earlier, the petitioner had filed the writ plea before the Supreme Court against cancellation of their appointment. Thus, on non-compliance of the order passed therein, contempt plea was filed which was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to prefer appropriate representations before the authorities and the same shall be considered by the authorities by a reasoned and the speaking order.
Therefore, second contempt was filed before the court as the representations in the case were not being decided by the authorities.
The Supreme Court in the case is of the view that it would not be possible for the Court to keep issuing the said directions.
The Petitioners approached the High Court in writ jurisdiction wherein it claimed that although directions had been issued in their petition by the Supreme Court, in a separate batch of similar petitions, the Supreme Court quashed cancellation of appointment order and directed for continuation of service.
It was also contended before the court that various similarly placed persons have been granted relief in writ jurisdictions. Consequently, the petitioners must be extended the same benefits.
The question before the court was when the order has been passed by Supreme Court with respect to the petitioners as to whether non-compliance of the same can be seen by the High Court.
The bench comprising of Justice Abdul Moin in the case observed and has held that High Court cannot direct for compliance of any judgment of the Supreme Court that once the judgement has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and there is the non-compliance of the same as such it is always open for the petitioners for filing a contempt petition but there cannot be any occasion for the High Court to have the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court complied with.
The court in the case also noted that the Supreme Court in the case Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, specifically held that in case of the non-compliance of its directions, the concerned police officers, apart from departmental action, shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be initiated before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ plea.
The counsel, Advocate Sharad Pathak, Advocate Piyush Pathak appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh, Ran Vijay Singh represented respondent.
