Delay condoned.
This special leave petition is directed against
the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad passed in Contempt Petition No.
175 of 2005 arising out of Writ Petition No.5219 of
2001, which was rejected as the learned Single Judge
was of the view that the contempt petition related to
a direction for payment of interest at the rate of 11%
p.a. since there was a mistake in the calculation for
the period in which the amount was temporarily
invested in pursuance to the directions of the Supreme
Court.
It appears that the petitioner had filed a
contempt petition in the High Court of Bombay alleging
that the directions and order passed by this Court in
Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2002 whereby this Court had
allowed interest to be claimed by the petitioner @ 11%
since the sale of the property for which the
petitioner was a bidder, had been wrongly cancelled
with which this Court refused to interfere but
maintained the order of refund amount along with 11%
p.a. simple interest within a period of four months.
The Petitioner felt aggrieved as the amount
accruing towards 11% interest as per computation of
the petitioner had not been deposited by the
respondent State. However, the petitioner did not
move this Court which had passed the order alleging
contempt but moved the High Court of Bombay stating
that the Respondents have indulged in contempt as they
did not deposit the amount accrued towards 11%
interest which was directed by the Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2002. The learned Single
Judge dismissed the contempt petition as he was of JUDGMENT the view that the contempt petition alleging non-
compliance of the judgment and order passed by the
Supreme Court will have to be addressed by the Supreme
Court itself and not by the High Court, especially
when no such liberty was given by the Supreme Court to
initiate any proceeding in the High Court alleging
non-compliance of its order. Learned Single Judge has
also relied upon certain authorities in support of the
view that contempt petition cannot be entertained by
the High Court alleging non-compliance of the order
passed by the Supreme Court.
Having perused the reasons in the light of the
submission of the counsel for the petitioner, we find
no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court as it
cannot be disputed that the judgment and order passed
by a particular Court, especially the Supreme Court if
alleged not to have been complied, will have to be
taken care of and addressed by the Court which passed
the order sought to be complied. The petitioner,
therefore, wrongly approached the High Court for
initiating contempt proceedings and the same has
rightly not been entertained. Challenge to the said
order by this special leave petition, therefore, is
not fit to be entertained; hence the special leave
petition is dismissed. JUDGMENT
However, counsel for the petitioner submits
that if this Court is of the view that the petitioner
had approached the wrong forum for initiating contempt
proceedings, he should not be deprived of the liberty
to approach the appropriate forum, which is the
Supreme Court, for initiating fresh contempt
proceedings alleging non-compliance of the judgment
and order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.
8539 of 2002.
We make it clear that we are not coming in the
way of the petitioner to take any appropriate steps
before any appropriate Forum for compliance of the
order and judgment passed by this Court and therefore,
he is at liberty to take recourse to any legal remedy
that may be available to him under the law including a
contempt petition which obviously will be dealt with
by the appropriate Court on its own merits.