Contempt petition

2025 YLR 955 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Art. 45Contempt petition

Petitioner filed writ petition for restraining the respondents from recalling the Notification before completion of deputation period of the petitioner but respondents recalled the said Notification despite issuance of stay order by High Court

Held, that record showed that the status quo order was properly served upon respondents and that fact had also been admitted by them during Court proceedings when charge sheet/questionnaire was put to them that they were aware of status quo order

Thus, the action of respondents was a loud and conspicuous transgression of Court order as that fact had been sufficiently substantiated from documentary record placed on record by the petitioner

Under law when contempt proceedings were initiated against a person, he was under obligation to prove his innocence

Respondents on issuance of Court notice submitted unconditional apology

Unconditional apology was not accepted for the reason that the same appeared to be just a half-hearted formality, always observed as a routine matter in such type of quasi criminal proceedings

In the instant case the respondents on one hand tendered and offered an unconditional apology while on the other hand defended their action by stating that orders had been issued by them in the light of the recommendations of Board of Governors

Respondent No. 1 admitted that he had issued the orders despite notice of restraining order of the Court and respondent No. 2 also admitted that he was aware of status quo order issued by the Court but despite that not only participated in the meeting of Board of Governors as member but also passed recommendations against petitioner, hence disruption of Court order by respondents was not only sufficiently substantiated but also accepted

Actions of respondent No. 1 tantamount to disrespecting the Courts as he did not bother to value the Court orders

Conduct of respondents was a glaring contempt

Respondents failed to substantiate their innocence, rather it had been amply proved that they willfully disobeyed the order of the Court while issuing the impugned orders, hence, any lenient view by the High Court would tantamount to encouraging recidivism and inspire likeminded persons to ignore, disregard, jump and neglect the commands of the Courts

Petition was allowed by awarding sentence of 15 days simple imprisonment to respondent No. 1, whereas respondent No. 2 was awarded sentence of 7-days simple imprisonment.

2018 MLD 771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 204Contempt of courtContempt petitionScope

Under the contempt laws no further jurisdiction had been conferred to the Court except to punish the contemnor and to sentence him with imprisonment and fine or otherwise

Court had not been bestowed with the jurisdiction to set aside an order in contempt petition which was not the subject matter before it.

2017 CLC 769 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 4Contempt petitionMaintainability

Constitutional petition was disposed of by consent of the parties that order passed by the Member Land Utilization Department, Board of Revenue was tentative in nature and would not come in the way of the title of petitioner and any party aggrieved by the impugned entry could approach to Civil Court for redressal of his grievance

Petitioner approached the Member Land Utilization Board of Revenue who passed order that and of petitioner stood already cancelled and record-of-right was of no legal value

Petitioner had challenged the said order by filing the contempt petition

Validity

Petitioner could not obtain any favourable relief in the constitutional petition which was disposed of by consent of parties

Impugned order passed by the Member Land Utilization Board of Revenue was neither set aside nor any direction had been issued by the High Court requiring the respondents to restore the impugned entry in favour of petitioner

Impugned order had been held to be tentative in nature

Petitioner was to approach the proper forum or the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance

Petitioner instead of seeking redressal of his grievance by approaching the relevant forum sought second endorsement in the impugned entry which was clarified by the Member Land Utilization Board of Revenue

Petitioner instead of challenging the said order had moved the present contempt petition which was not maintainable

Contempt petition was dismissed in circumstances however dismissal of the same would not affect merits of the case or entitlement of either party.

2012 PLC 274 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S. 27Violation of order of the National Industrial Relations CommissionContempt petition

Employee had brought complaint under S.27 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 against the employers alleging that he had been thrown out of service due to the reason that he complied with the orders of the Commission against the instructions of the employers

Complainant had prayed that employers be summoned and proceeded against for committing contempt of the Commission and be punished in accordance with law

Complainant had not pointed out as to which order of the Commission was violated by the employers

Complainant had challenged his termination order by filing his grievance petition before the Labour Court

Complainant who had already approached the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance, could not be allowed to take two parallel proceedings simultaneously to get the relief

Contempt petition being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.