Holding

The Allahabad High Court’s order granting leave was not in conformity with Section 35(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, rendering the Uttarakhand High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the second contempt petition invalid, but the Supreme Court revived the original proceedings before the Allahabad High Court to serve the ends of justice.

Summary

Employees of a college filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking regularisation of their services, which was partially granted. The order was not complied with, leading the employees to file a contempt petition under Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. After the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 created the new State of Uttarakhand, the Allahabad High Court Single Judge directed the respondents to approach the Uttarakhand High Court, granting leave for a second contempt petition. The Uttarakhand High Court entertained the petition, but the State of Uttarakhand appealed, contending that the Allahabad High Court had no authority to grant such leave and that the Uttarakhand High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 35 of the 2000 Act. The Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court’s order was not in conformity with Section 35(3) of the Reorganisation Act, so the second contempt petition could not have been entertained, yet setting aside the order alone would defeat justice; consequently, the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court were revived and may continue there or be transferred. The appeals were partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Allahabad High Court could grant leave to file a second contempt petition in the Uttarakhand High Court after the transfer of territory under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.
Whether the Uttarakhand High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the second contempt petition.
Whether the State of Uttarakhand has locus standi to maintain a special leave petition under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Whether the limitation period under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act applies to the contempt proceedings.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 14, s. 19, s. 20
Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000s. 26, s. 35

Subjects

contempt of courtjurisdictiontransfer of proceedingsUttar Pradesh Reorganisation Actstate reorganisationlimitation periodspecial leave petitionArticle 142High Court procedure

Judgment

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 281
. ""
STATE OF UTIARANCHAL THRU. SECRETARY A
v.
SEHNAZ MIRZA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3553-54 Of 2008)
MAY 12, 2008
B
""'>
----,-' Ji; [S.S. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000; Proviso ap-
pended to s. 35(3)/Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Ss. 12 and
14: c
Transfer of pending proceeding in contempt petition from
Allahabad High Court to Uttranchal High Court - Procedure
of- Held: Though, on the appointed day, Allahabad High Court
ceased to exercise jurisdiction in respect of transferred terri-
-+ tory, but proviso appended to s. 35(3) of the 2000 Act carves D
out an exception thereto - In pending contempt petition,
Allahabad High Court erred in granting leave for filing second
contempt petition before Uttranchal High Court - In terms of
the provision t.yls. 35(3) of the Act, it was for the Chief Justice
of Allahabad Hi~h Court to transfer the record of the case to E
the Uttranacha/ High Court but the Single Judge could also
continue to hear the matter - Hence, order passed by Single
Judge of High Court was not in conformity with the procedure
• as laid down u/s. 35(3) of2000 Act, hence set aside - Interest
--+·
of justice would be subserved if High Court goes into the merit F
of the Contempt Petition - Since Uttranachal High Court could
not have entertained the second contempt petition, the con-
tempt proceeding before the Allahabad High Court revived
for further action in terms of provisions u/s 35(3) of 2000 Act -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Jurisdiction under
G
-" exercise.
Respondents employees filed a writ petition before
the Allahabad High Court for regularization of their ser-
vices. The writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble Court. Al-
281 H
282 SUPREME COURT RERORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R.
• •

A legedly the order of the Allahabad High Court has not been
complied with by the authorities. Aggrieved, the respon-
dents filed an application under Section 12/14 of the Con-
tempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the meantime, Parliament
enacted the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2000, and
B new State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand came into being. In
the contempt petition, Single Judge of the Allahabad High t.
j.
Court directed the respondent to approach Uttranachal/
Uttrakhand High Court for further relief in the matter as
Educational Authorities in U.P. cannot execute the order
c passed by the writ court. Respondents filed a contempt
petition before the Uttaranchal High Court. Although no
final order has been passed by the High Court, the State
of Uttarakhand has filed this appeal inter alia on the
premise that the High Court had no jurisdiction to enter-
tain the second contempt application in view of Section
D +-
35 of the 2000 Act.
Appellant-State contended that Respondents con-
tended that in a case of this nature, the cause of action
would be a continuing one and the bar of limitation as
E provided for under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts
Act would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the
case; and that the State of Uttarakhand has no locus
standi to maintain the special leave petition Partly allow-
ing the appeals the Court,
.r
F Held: 1.1 Whereas on and from the appointed day, the
Allahabad High Court ceased to have any jurisdiction, the
proviso appended to Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Uttar
Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 carves out an exception
thereto. The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, there-
G fore, having regard to the proviso, committed a serious error
in discharging the contemnor. (para 9) [289-A,B] lo--

1.2 The second contempt application was filed be-
fore the Uttaranchal High Court pursuant to the leave
granted by the Allahabad High Court. Technically, such
H
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. SEHNAZ MIRZA 283
• 4.
& ORS.

leave could not have been granted. It was for the Chief A
Justice of the High Court to transfer the records to the
Uttaranchal High Court but the Single Judge also could
have continued to hear the matter. (para 9) [287-C,D]
1.3 The State of Uttarakhand is required to comply with
the order. The financial burden would be on it. This counter B
' ,I(
of the opinion that it could maintain the special leave peti-
tion keeping in view the question of law arising herein, as
it is otherwise a person aggrieved. (Para 14) [289-B,C]
2. The order of the Single Judge of the Allahabad c
High Court being not in conformity with Sub-section (3)
of Section 35 of the 2000 Act, evidently, the Uttaranr.hal
High Court could not have entertained the second con-
tempt petition. But, setting aside the said order, by itself,
--+- would not subserve the ends of justice. Justice would be
D
subserved if one High Court or the other goes into the
merit of the contempt application. This Court in exercise
of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, while setting aside the impugned orders, as set
aside the order passed by the Single Judge of the
Allahabad High Court and direct that the proceedings E
before the Allahabad High Court, shall stand revived. The
Allahabad High Court either may continue to proceed in ·
.. the matter or the Chief Justice of the said High Court may
-+-
transfer the proceedings before the Uttaranchal High
Court. (Para 15) [289-C,D,E,F] F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
3553-3554 of 2008
From the Interim Orders dated 20/12/2004 and 20/7/2005
of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Civil Contempt G
No. 15/2004
Vijay K. Jain for the Appellants.
Dr. J.N. Dubey, Anurag Dubey, Anu Sawhney, Meenesh
Dubey, S.K. Divakar, S.R. ·Setia. Satyaiit A. Desai, Anagha S. H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A Desai. Venkateswara Rao. Anumolu and Amol N. Suryawanshi
for the Respondents.
S.B. SINHA, J : 1. Leave granted.
2. Application of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
B Reorganisation Act. 2000 (for shor-t "the 2000 Act") falls for
consideration in these appeals which arise out of a judgment
and order dated 20.07.2005 passed by the High Court of
Uttaranchal at Nainital in Civil Contempt No. 14 of 2004.
3. Respondents herein have filed a writ petition before the
C Allahabad High Court for regularization of their services in the
Nagar Palika Balika Intermediate College situated at Haldwani.
Kathgodam, District Nainital.
The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment and or-
D der dated 29.05.1997 in part, directing:
• t
"( 1) The posts again~t which the petitioners are working
on part time basis for more than five years should be
considered for sanction/ creation by the appropriate
authority and the management of the institution shall, if the
E necessity of employment still exists, notify to the proper
authority the requirement of sanction such posts and the
authority shall, as expeditiously as possible, consider the
question of creation of such posts in accordance with law. •
(2) The services of the petitioners shall not be terminated
F after the expiry of 58 days or any such limited period and
shall continue till the exigency of employment exists and if
the posts are permanently sanctioned till a duly selected
candidate joins against each respective post. When such
a post is created sanctioned. and advertised, the
G petitioners shall have the right to apply against the
respective post notwithstanding the age bar.
(3) Till the pet.tioners remain in service in terms of the
foregoing directions, they will be paid their salary and
other benefits at par with tl)e regularly appointed teachers
H
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. SEHNAZ MIRZA 285
& ORS. [S.8. SINHA, J :]
,, .....
in case they are performing equal work." A

4. The said order is said to have not been complied with.
An application under Section 12/14 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1970 was filed by the respondents.
5. On or about 25.08.2000, the Parliament enacted the B
2000 Act. By reason of the said Act, the new State of Uttaranchal
~ ..I(
(now known as Uttarakhand) came into being with effect from
the appointed day, specified therein, i.e., 9.11.2000.

6. By an order dated 29.10.2003, a learned Single Judge
of the AllahabadHigh Court directed as under: c
"During (he pendency of this contempt petition, the State
of Uttaranchal was created and Haldyvani and Nainital are
now included in that State as such presently the U.P.
Educational Authorities cannot execute the orders passed
-+ D
. by the writ court. The proper remedy for the applicant at
this stage is to approach the Uttaranchal High Court."
7. Respondents thereafter filed a contempt petition be-
fore the Uttaranchal High Court which was marked as Contempt
Petition No. 15 of 2004, which was entertained. E
Before the said High Court, time was sought for, for com-
'· plying with the said direction. The matter was adjourned. It came
. before another learned Judge of the said High Court on
20.07.2005. It was directed to be listed after one month. Al-
i- F
though no final order has yet been passed by the High Court,
the State of Uttarakhand has filed this appeal inter alia on the
premise that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
second contempt application in view of Section 35 of the 2000
Act.
G
.. ~
8. Section 26 of the 2000 Act provides for constitution of a
separate High Court on and from the appointed day.
~

Section 35 of the 2000 Act reads as under:
"35 - Transfer of proceedings from Allahabad High Court
H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

+- '
A to Uttaranchal High Court
(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the High Court at
Allahabad shall, as from the appointed day, have no
jurisdiction in respect of the transferred territory.

B (2) Such proceedings pending in the High Court at Allahabad
immediately before the appointed day as are certified.
~
~
whether before or after that day, by the Chief Justice of that
High Court, having regard to the place of accrual of the
cause of action and other circumstances, to be proceedings
c which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court of
Uttaranchal shall, as soon as may be after such certification.
be transferred to the High Court of Uttaranchal.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections
(1) and (2) of this section or in section 28. but save as
D hereinafter provided, the High Court at Allahabad shall +- -
have, and the High C0urt of Uttaranchal shall not have,
jurisdiction to entertain, hear or dispose of appeals.
applications for leave to the Supreme Court. applications
for review and other proceedings where any such
E proceedings seek any relief in respect of any order passed
by the High Court at Allahabad before the appointed day:
Provided that if after any such proceedings have been
entertained by the High Court at Allahabad, it appears to ;.
the Chief Justice of that High Court that they ought to be ~
F transferred to the High Court of Uttaranchal, he shall order
that they shall be so transferred, and such proceedings
shall thereupon be transferred accordingly.
(4) Any order made by the High Court at Allahabad-
G (a) before the appointed day, in any proceedings
transferred to the High Court of Uttaranchal by virtue of
·~
sub-section (2), or
(b) in any proceedings with respect to which the High Court
at Allahabad retains jurisdiction by virtue of sub-section (3).
H
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. SEHNAZ MIRZA 287
; ..-4. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J :]

shall for all purposes have effect, not only as an order of A
. the High Court at Allahabad, but also as an order made by
the High Court of Uttaranchal."

9. The said provisions are clear and explicit. Whereas on
and from the appointed day, the Allahabad High Court ceased
to have any jurisdiction, the proviso appended to Sub-section B
• ~
(3) of Section 35 of the 2000 Act carves out an exception thereto.

The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court,
therefore, having regard to the aforementioned proviso, com-

"'.. mitted a serious error in discharging the contemnor. c
The second contempt application was filed before the
Uttaranchal High Court pursuant to the leave granted by the
Allahabad High Court. Technically, such leave could not have
been granted. It was for the Chief Justice of the High Court to
- -+ transfer the records to the Uttaranchal High Court but the learned D
Single Judge also r'Juld have continued to hear the matter.
10. Dr. J.N. Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, however, would submit that in a case of
this nature, the cause of action would be a continuing one and the
..... bar of limitation as provided for under Section 20 of the Contempt E
' of Courts Act would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the
case. It was furthermore submitted that the State of Uttarakhand
~
has no locus standi to maintain the special leave petition.
r--
11. We, in this proceeding, at this stage, do not intend to F
determine the effect of the judgment of the Altahabad High Court,
the same having attained finality. We also do not intend to enter
into the question as to whether Section 20 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 would apply to the facts of this case or not. We
may, however, notice that a Division Bench of this Court held so
G
in Pal/av Sheth v Custodian [1989 Supp 2 SCC 418] stating:
"7. Another point was taken about limitation of this
application under Section 20 of the Alt. Section 20 states
that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt.
either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 8 S.C.R.

A period of one year from the date on which the contempt is
alleged to have been committed. In this case, the present
application was filed on or about 3-11-1988 as appears
from the affidavit in support of the application. The contempt
consisted, inter alia, of the act of not giving the possession
B by force of the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge.
Narnaul dated 12-2-1988. Therefore, the application was
well within the period of one year. Failure to give
possession, if it amounts to a contempt in a situation of
this nature is a continuing wrong. There was no scope for
application of Section 20 of the Act."
.,
c
12. The correctness of the said decision came up for con-
sideration before another Bench of this Court in Pal/av Sheth
v. Custodian ((2001) 7 SCC 549] wherein this Court refused to
pronounce its judgment thereupon opining:
D +_
"48. The provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act are
applicable in the present case. The fraud perpetuated by
the appellant was unearthed only on the Custodian
receiving information from the Income Tax Department.
vide their letter of 5-5-1998. On becoming aware of the
fraud, application for initiating contempt proceedings was
filed on 18-6-1998, well within the period of limitation
P19tcribed by Section 20. It is on this application that the
Special Court by its order of 9-4-1999 directed the
application to be treated as a show-cause notice to the
F appellant to punish him for contempt. In view of the
.abovestated facts and in the light of the discussion
regarding the correct interpretation of Section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, it follows that the action taken by
the Special Court to pun i1 the appellant for contempt
G was valid. The Special Court has only faulted in being
unduly lenient in awarding the sentence. We do not think
it is necessary. under the circumstances. to examine the
finding of the Special Court that this was a continuing
v .11g or contempt and. the:efore. action for contempt
H ·. · ; n •t barred by Section : C.
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. SEHNAZ MIRZA 289
.;
_.... & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J :]

13. We, as at present advised, leave the matter at that A

14. We, however, do not agree with the submission of Dr.
Dubey that the State of Uttarakhand has no locus standi to main-
tain the application. It may be that the contempt petition has
been filed against individuals. They, however, could not have
maintained this appeal in terms of Section 19 of the Contempt B
~ of Courts Act as neither any order of punishment has been
passed nor any final order has yet been passed.

The State of Uttarakhand is required to comply with the
order. The financial burden would be on it We, therefore, are of c
the opinion that it could maintain the special leave petition keep-
ing in view the question of law arising herein, as it is otherwise
a person aggrieved.

_,.... 15. The order of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad
High Court dated 29.10.2003 being not in conformity with Sub- D
section (3) of Section 35 of the 2000 Act; evidently. the
Uttaranchal High Court could not have entertained the second
contempt petition. But, setting aside the said order. by itself,
would not subserve the ends of justice. Justice would be
subserved if one High Court or the other goes into the merit of E
~
the contempt application. We, therefore, in exercise of our ju-
'
Ai
risdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, while
setting aside the impugned orders as set aside the order dated
. ,,_ 29.10.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
Allahabad High Court and direct that the proceedings before F
the Allahabad High Court. shall stand revived. The Allahabad
High Court either may continue to proceed in the matter or the
Chief Justice of the said High Court may transfer the proceed-
ings before the Uttaranchal High Court

16. The appeals are allowed to the aforementioned ex- G
~ tent No costs.
_.,'· S.K.S. Appeals partly allowed.

H