Supreme Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought extraordinary relief, a direction to the High Court to list and expeditiously dispose of a contempt petition filed by him. The contempt arose from the failure of the authorities to comply with an interim stay order dated 19-03-2024, passed by the Single Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court.
A Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. found it distressing that the petitioner had not yet received the benefit of the judicial directions issued in his favour.
Accordingly, the Court directed all authorities to implement the High Court’s interim order dated 19-03-2024 without any further delay. The immediate effect of this direction was the restoration of the petitioner to the position of elected Pradhan.
Background
The petitioner was elected as the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Ucchain, District Bharatpur. However, he was placed under suspension on 11-02-2024 in exercise of powers under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner challenged the suspension order by filing a Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court. By its order dated 19-03-2024, the High Court granted an interim stay on the suspension. In the said order, the High Court provided reasons justifying the necessity of interim relief.
Questioning the interim order, the State filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The State advanced detailed arguments, which were duly considered by the Court. By its order dated 08-04-2024, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the interim order passed by the Single Judge.
Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the State approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed on 28-02-2025. Despite the orders passed by the Single Judge, as affirmed by both the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, not being implemented, and notwithstanding multiple representations made by the petitioner, no action was taken.
Consequently, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, in which the High Court issued notice on 04-08-2024. However, no further progress was made in the matter thereafter.
It was in these circumstances that the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a seemingly innocuous prayer, a direction to the High Court to list and dispose of the contempt petition expeditiously.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that, in the normal course, it would not have entertained a petition of this nature. However, the petitioner was seeking implementation of a relief that he had already obtained by invoking a remedy under Article 226. It was distressing to note that the petitioner had not yet received the benefit of the directions issued by the Single Judge and the Division Bench, as upheld by this Court.
In those circumstances, the Court stated that the only necessary course of action was to ensure that the interim order dated 19-03-2024 was implemented without any further delay. Accordingly, all authorities were directed to comply with the order dated 19-03-2024 forthwith. The High Court was also instructed to ensure that its order was implemented without any delay whatsoever.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of, and the accompanying interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of as well.
Since the Court was directing the implementation of the orders passed by the High Court, it concluded that there was no need to issue notice to the State.
[Himanshu v State of Rajasthan , Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 818/2025, decided on 01-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Kanishk Arora, Adv., Mr. Pradeep Arora, Adv., Ms. Shakshi Goyal, Adv., Mrs. Nidhi Vardhan, Adv., Mr. Pulkit Prakash, AOR
Buy Constitution of India HERE
