Supreme Court of India
KEDAR SINGH KUSHWAHAversusDHANIRAM & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1007
- Decided
- 4 August 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the officer was guilty of contempt for wilfully disobeying its order and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
In a Gram Panchayat election, the second respondent was declared Sarpanch. The first respondent filed an election petition before the Sub‑Divisional Officer (the Specified Officer), who ordered a recount and dismissed the petition based on that recount. The High Court held that the Specified Officer lacked jurisdiction to order a recount, set aside his order and remitted the matter to him to decide the petition and preliminary objections within two months. The officer later again ordered a recount, failed to decide the petition within the stipulated time, and did not appear before the High Court when summoned in contempt proceedings. The High Court found him guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of its order. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s finding, held that the officer was guilty of contempt, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer, as Specified Officer, had jurisdiction to order a recount of votes in a Panchayat election petition.
- Whether the officer’s failure to comply with the High Court’s order and his non‑appearance in contempt proceedings amounted to contempt of court.
- Whether the officer could invoke a lack of understanding of the High Court’s order as a defence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
contempt of courtpanchayat electionjurisdictionrecount of voteshigh court ordersub‑divisional officerprocedural compliance
Judgment
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 364
A KEDAR SINGH KUSHWAHA
v.
DHANIRAM & ANR.
~
.
(Civil Appeal No. 5096 of 2009)
AUGUST 4, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Contempt of Court - High Court in a contempt petition
holding that Specified Officer had no jurisdiction to direct re- ;..
c counting of votes in panchayat elections - High Court
directing the Officer to decide election petition within specified
time and also to decide preliminary issues - Officer neither
deciding the case within given time, nor deciding the
preliminary issues and also directing recounting - Contempt
D Petition - Non-appearance of contemnor before Court -
Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court finding
~
him guilty of contempt - On appeal, held : Facts of the case
shows that the contemnor was guilty of contempt of court.
In the election of Sarpanch of Grampanchayat,
E Second
respondent was declared elected. First
respondent filed an application seeking setting aside of
his election. Specified Officer directed re-counting of the
votes and dismissed the application relying on the re- • '
counting.
F
First respondent filed writ petition challenging the
order. He took the plea that Specified Officer had no
jurisdiction to direct re-counting and should have
decided the case on the basis of available evidence on
G record. High Court allowed the writ petition and remitted
the matter to the Officer .concerned to be decided within ). ~
specified time. High Court also directed the officer to
decide the preliminary issues. Appellant, who was the
t,
Specified Officer at the relevant time again directed re-
H 364
KEDAR SINGH KUSHWAHA v. DHANIRAM & ANR. 365
counting. First respondent filed contempt petition on the A
'!
ground that the order of the appellant was in violation of
the order of the High Court. Despite direction of High
Court, appellant did not appear before the Court and
hence bailable warrants were issued against him. High
Court found him guilty of willful disobedience. Intra-court B
appeal was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
... HELD: 1. The appellant was the Specified Officer and
in the. said capacity was authorized to determine the c
election petition filed by the first respondent. The Election
Petition filed by him was dismissed only on the basis of
ah otder of recounting passed by the Specified Officer in
respect whereof allegedly no objection was raised. The
High Court, however, in its order dated 24.7.1996, in clear D
.} terms, pointed out that the prescribed authority has no
jurisdiction in that behalf even with the consent of the
parties. [Para 9] [369-C-D] '
2. The order of the High Court was not complied with E
as the election petition was not disposed of within the
period specified therefor by the High Court. Preliminary
objections of the parties had not been determined. From
• ... a perusal of the order passed by the appellant, it appears
that the ballot boxes were opened and a direction for
F
recounting of the ballot papers was made. Why an order
of recounting was passed despite the clear finding of the
High Court has not been explained. The effect of the
decision which was relied upon by the High Court was
' premise on which
also not taken into consideration. The
the High Court passed its judgment was neither noticed G.
• 1
nor considered. [Paras 1O] [370-C-G]
3. The appellant cannot take the plea that he did not
understand the effect and purport of the order. T~e High
H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A Court, has rightly arrived at a finding that as a responsible ..
and high ranking officer, the said plea was not available
to him. He, therefore, could not have committed the same
error as was done by his predecessor in office. [Para 11]
[371-A-B]
B
4. Even during the proceedings before the High
Court, appellant's conduct was not above board. Why he
could not appear before the High Court at the earliest
possible opportunity has not been properly explained. In
c terms of the Rules framed by the High Court under the
Contempt of Courts Act, the appellant has rightly been
called upon to appear. He could not have ignored the
same on the premise that the Collector did not give him
permission therefor. Even otherwise, no order refusing
such permission by the Collector has been brought on
D record. [Para 11] [371-8-D]
~
<.
P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and
Ors. AIR 1989 SC 640; M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy
and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 341 and Chandrika Prasad Yadav v.
E State of Bihar and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 331, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1989 SC 640 Referred to. Para 9 > 1
(2004) 6 sec 341 Referred to. Para 11
F
(2004) 6 sec 331 Referred to. Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5096 of 2009.
G From the Judgment & Order dated 17.5.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at
> •
Gwalior in Misc. Appeal No. 333 of 1998.
B.S. Banthia for the Appellants.
H
KEDAR SINGH KUSHWAHA v. DHANIRAM & ANR. 367
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant was the Sub-Divisional Officer Pichhore.
In the said capacity, he was a Specified Officer for B
determination of election disputes in terms of the provisions of
Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt
Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for
-t
short, 'the Rules') framed in terms of Section 122 of the Madhya
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (for short, 'the Act'). c
3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein contested an election for
the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khadoya, Block;
Tehsil Pichhore. The second respondent was declared elected.
Questioning the legality whereof, the first respondent filed an
D
1 application for setting aside his election in the Court of
Specified Officer, Pichhore. Upon hearing the parties, the
Specified Officer directed recounting of all the votes polled jn
the said election. Relying on or on the basis of such re-counting,
the election petition was dismissed.
E
4. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said order,
the first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court
.~ ~
contending that the Specified Officer had no jurisdiction to
. direct re-counting of votes only on the ground that no objection .
was raised by the parties as prior thereto and that he was F
required to arrive at the conclusion that sufficient evidence had
been brought on record by the parties for the said purpose.
It was also urged that such a judidal power could not have
been delegated in favour of the Tehsildar.
I { G
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of a
judgment and order dated 24. 7 .1996 allowed the said writ
petition, setting aside the order of the Specified Officer and
remitted the matter back to it directing the election petition to
H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
;,
A be decided within two months. It was furthermore directed that
the Specified Officer should also decide the preliminary
objections raised by the respondent in the Election Petition.
The parties were directed to appear before it on 19.8.1996.
5. Despite the said order, however, no action thereon was
B
taken. Notices were issued only on 23.10.1997.
By reason of an order dated 30.12.1997, the appellant
who was holding the post of the Specified Officer/Sub-
Divisional Officer at the relevant time, again directed for
c recounting of ballot papers. On the premise that by reason
thereof the appellant had disobeyed the order of the High Court
dated 24. 7 .1996, a contempt petition was filed by the first
respondent. It was pointed out that neither the preliminary
objection was heard nor any evidence was recorded. It was
D furthermore pointed out that despite the fact that the period of
two months expired on or about 18.10.1996 but without
obtaining an order of extension from the High Court, he issued
the said order for recounting of the votes.
6. The High Court issued Rule Nisi on the said application.
E
Appellant was directed to remain present in the court. It,
however, stands admitted that for one reason or the other, he
did not appear before the Court and bailable warrants of his )> ~
arrest were issued for his appearance on 6.5.1998.
F Appellant filed a show-cause in the said contempt
proceedings. Upon hearing the parties, the appellant was
found guilty of willful disobedience of the order of the High Court
and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and his detention till the rising of the
court, was directed.
G ) '
7. An intra-court appeal preferred by the appellant
thereagainst in terms of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 was dismissed by reason of the impugned order
dated 17.5.2005.
H 8. Mr. Banthia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
KEDAR SINGH KUSHWAHA v. DHANIRAM & ANR. 369
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
·~ appellant, would submit that the High Court committed a serious A
error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to
take into consideration that the matter came up before the
appellant only in 1997 whereupon he took all necessary steps
to dispose of the proceedings before him. It was urged that
failure on the part of the appellant to appear before the high B
Court pursuant to the directions issued was occasioned by non-
grant of permission therefor by the higher authorities. Our
attention in this behalf has, inter alia, been drawn to an
~
intimation given by the appellant to that effect before the
Collector on 4.5.1998. c
9. Indisputably, the appellant was the Specified Officer and
in the said capacity was authorized to determine the election
petition filed by the first respondent. The Election Petition filed
by him was dismissed only on the basis of an order of
recounting passed by the Specified Officer in respect whereof D
allegedly no objection was raised. The High Court, however,
in its order dated 24.7.1996, in clear terms, pointed out that
the prescribed authority has no jurisdiction in that behalf even
with the consent of the parties. Relying on or, inter alia, on the
basis of a decision of this Court in P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. E
K.A.M. Mappi/lai Mohindeen & Ors. [AIR 1989 SC 640], the
=- .J High Court made extensive reference to the Rules, to hold :
"From the aforesaid rules, it is clear that any order of
recounting can be passed after conclusion of the .trial and F
the recounting can only be ordered by the Sub-Divisional
Officer who is a prescribed authority to decide the dispute.
The sub-divisional officer has not acted properly, inasmuch
... {
as it acted illegally in delegating the power~ of recounting
to the Tehsildar. The authority is described as Sub-
Divisional Officer as the authority to decide the election
G
petitions, therefore, any act done by the Tehsildar of
recounting. cannot be said to be proper and on the basis
of recounting by the Tehsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer
gravely erred in dismissing the election petition. The order
H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A dismissing the election petition is hereby set aside with a ..
direction to Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the petition
according to law and shall also decide the preliminary
objections raised by the respondents before him. t-Je
cannot shirk from his responsibility and delegate"his
B powers to subordinate authority."
It was on that premise that the aforementioned directions
were issued.
10. Indisputably, the said order was not complied with as
c the election petition was not disposed of within the period
specified therefor by the High Court. Indisputably again,
pursuant to the order of the High Court, the.parties appeared
on 19.8.1996. The appellant, in his order sheet dated
3.12.1997, recordeq that the order of the High Court was
D received on 28.2.1997. Why, despite the same, he did not take
any step to issue notices to the parties and proceeded to
determine the issue before him has not been explained. The
appellant, in his order dated 23.12.1997, proceeded on the
basis that the High Court need not be approached for obtaining
E further directions from it.
From a perusal of the order dated 13.1.1998, it appears
that proceedings started at 4 pm on that day, the ballot boxes '
were opened and a direction for recounting of the ballot papers
was made. Indisputably, preliminary objections of the parties
F had not been determined. Why an order of recounting was
passed despite the clear finding of the High Court has not been
explained. The effect of the decision of this Court in P.K.K.
Shamsudeen (supra) was also not taken into consideration.
The premise on which the High Court passed its judgment
G dated 24. 7.1996 was neither noticed nor considered.
11. It is now well settled that an order directing recounting
must be preceded by application of mind by the Prescribed
)
-
Authority. [See M. Chinnasamy v. K. C. Palanisamy & Ors.
H [(2004) 6 SCC 341] and Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of
KEDAR SINGH KUSHWAHA v. PHANIRAM & ANR. 371
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
~ Bihar & Ors. [(2004) 6 sec 3311 A
-- It is, thus, idle to contend thc:it the appellant did not
understand the effect and purport of the order. The High Court,
in our opinion, has rightly arrived at a finding that as a
responsible and high ranking officer, the said plea was not
8
available to him. He, therefore, could not have committed the
same error as was done by his predecessor in office. Even
during the proceedings before the High Court, appellant's
conduct ias notabove board. Why he could not appear before
the High ourt at the earliest possible opportunity has not been
properly e¥plained. In terms of the Rules framed by the High
c
Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, the appellant has
rightly been called upon to appear. He could not have ignored
the same on the premise that the Collector did not give him
permission therefor. Even otherwise, no order refusing such
permission by the Collector has been brought on record. D
)
12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out
... for interference with the impugned judgment. This appeal is,
therefore, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances E
-
of the case, there shc:ill be no order as to c;osts.
__, K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
f j
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search