Patna High Court rebukes government officials, says non-compliance of orders resulting thousands of contempt petitions

By Alok Mohit

Patna: The Patna High Court has strongly criticized government officials for non-compliance of various court orders, resulting in the filing of thousands of contempt petitions.

The rebuke came from a division bench, comprising Justice PB Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey during the hearing of a contempt petition filed by Sanjay Kumar, a resident of Basantpatti village in Sheohar district.

The court noted that in many cases the orders of the court are not being implemented without the filing of a contempt petition. “We have come across in a number of cases that orders of this court are not being implemented without there being a contempt petition,” the judges said.

The case in question involved a petition regarding a sawmill, where the court’s order had not been complied with even after nearly two years from the deadline provided. Taking serious note of this non-compliance, the court had earlier summoned principal chief conservator of forest N Jawahar Babu to provide an explanation “in respect of initiation of contempt of court proceedings or imposition of penalty”.

After hearing the official’s explanation, the court remarked that it was only after being summoned that the officials “opened their eyes to the issue.” The environment, climate change, and forest department informed the court that there were certain administrative difficulties in addressing the grievance of the petitioner, leading to further delays.

Considering the non-compliance, the court directed that a cost of Rs 3,000 be paid to the petitioner. The court also reiterated its concern over the frequent non-compliance with its orders, stating, “It has become a rule, rather than an exception, that a litigant, having obtained an order from a constitutional court, is not sure of the order bearing the fruit of relief in actual terms.”

The bench further expressed frustration over the fact that “every litigant is compelled, under varied circumstances, to knock on the doors of the court repeatedly with the same cause.”

The court criticised the “insouciant attitude of certain officials” that had reduced the solemn constitutional power of contempt to that of an execution proceeding. It noted that in “every second instance of remedial orders given by the high court,” the petitioner is required to file a contempt case to have the order enforced.

Despite repeated observations, the court said, the respondents had not reformed their approach towards implementing the court’s orders.

“Contempt petitions are filed in thousands,” the court noted, adding that, in most cases, after a writ or appeal was allowed, the state respondents or university authorities did not pursue further litigation before a higher forum until a contempt petition was filed. “They do not open their eyes until filing of contempt of courts petition,” the court remarked.

The court also highlighted that when a contempt notice was issued, officials either implement the court’s orders after several years of delay or seek time to approach a higher forum, such as the letters patent appeal (LPA) bench or the Supreme Court. While acknowledging the respondents’ fundamental right to approach higher forums, the court criticised the unnecessary delays and “sleeping over the matter,” stating that almost every petition was followed by a contempt petition. This practice, the court emphasised, is “deprecated.”