HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual mode) Reserved on 21.05.2025 Pronounced on 29.05.2025 CJ Court LPA No. 39/2025 in CCP(S) No. 235/2021 Mohd. Aijaz Asad Secretary to Government Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, U. T. of J&K and others …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG vs M/s Giri Steel Furniture, Bye Pass Sidhra Jammu and another .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. K. D. S. Kotwal, Adv. Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 18.09.2024 passed in contempt petition bearing CCP(S) No. 235/2021, tilted „M/s Giri Furniture and another vs. Bipul Pathak and others‟, whereby the learned Single Judge after examining the consideration order bearing No. 470-JK(RD&PR) of 2023 dated 12.09.2023 passed by the respondent No.1/appellant herein, in compliance to the judgment dated 25.02.2021 rendered by the learned writ court in WP(C) No. 350/2021, whereby the claim of the respondents has been rejected, has directed the 2 LPA No. 39/2025 appellants herein to file fresh compliance report in light of the observations made in the order impugned. 2. The appellants have assailed order dated 18.09.2024 on the ground that the order of the learned writ court dated 25.02.2021, from which the contempt petition had sprouted, was complied with by the appellants as the appellants were only mandated to consider the case of the respondents for payment of admitted liability and once the order was complied with by the appellants by passing consideration order, the learned Single Judge could not have directed the appellants to file fresh compliance report, as it would amount to issuance of fresh directions other than the ones, issued in terms of the original order. It is stated that the administrative approval and technical sanction were lacking, in respect of works executed by the respondents and out of seven works, five works were executed, and one remained incomplete. 3. Mr. S. S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG has vehemently argued that in terms of order dated 25.02.2021 passed in writ petition, the appellants were directed only to consider the case of the respondents for payment of admitted amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and once the order was complied with by the appellants by passing a speaking order, the learned Single Judge could not have directed the appellants to file fresh compliance report, as it would amount to issuance of fresh directions. To double down his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul and another v 3 LPA No. 39/2025 Tarak Nath Ganguly and others, AIR 2002 SC 2215 and Sudhir Vasudevva, Chairman and MD ONGC and others v M. George Ravishekaran and others, AIR 2014 SC 950,. 4. On the contrary, Mr. K. D. S. Kotwal, learned counsel representing the respondents has vehemently argued that the consideration order was passed by appellant No. 1 on the premise that there was no „technical sanction as well as administrative approval‟ in respect of works executed by the respondents, whereas the fact remains that both technical sanction and the administrative approval were already granted and the learned Single Judge after considering the same, passed the order dated 18.09.2024. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The record depicts that the respondents had filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 350/2021 for the release of amount of Rs. 145.21 lacs approximately, as it was claimed by the respondents that they had supplied certain material for construction of foot bridges under MGNREGA scheme. Taking into consideration the communication dated 28.02.2020 of the District Development Commissioner, Poonch, whereby he had requested the Administrative Department to release the funds for making the payment to the respondents, the learned writ court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 25.02.2021 in the following manner: “ … considering the limited nature of controversy, this petition at the threshold is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of the admitted amount in accordance with the 4 LPA No. 39/2025 terms and conditions of the contract agreement. Let appropriate orders be passed within a period of four weeks from today. In case of rejection of the case, a speaking order be passed”. 7. As the order dated 25.02.2021 was not complied, the respondents filed the contempt petition bearing CCP (S) No. 235/2021. Appellants filed the compliance report before the learned Single Judge, with consideration order dated 12.09.2023 whereby the claim of the respondents was rejected on the following grounds: “Whereas, in the instant case, it reveals from the record that no Technical sanction, no Administrative Approval, no prior fund demand from Finance Department has been taken for execution of these works and no tender process has been executed. The work has been done without adhering to the codal formalities and the respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay the amount under rules as no prior approval has been sought.” 8. The record further depicts that the respondents filed the response to the compliance report thereby stating that both „administrative approval and technical sanction‟ were granted and appellant No. 1 has passed the consideration order on the basis of wrong facts in order to mislead the court. The details of the work in the response filed to the compliance report have been mentioned as under: S. No. Name of work Administrative approval Technical sanction 1. Supply and fabrication of approx. 10 Mtrs span and steel foot bridge including carriage at site (on the approved rates) at Tararamwali Administrative approval granted vide order No. ACDP/MGNREGA/7380- 83 dated 19.09.2018 (S. No. 1, 2 and 3) Technical sanction No. 569 for an amount of Rs. 9.41 Lacs Technical sanction No. 568 for an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs 2. Supply and fabrication of aprox. 15.70 Mtrs span and steel bridge including carriage at site (on the approved rates) at Behramgalla. Administrative approval granted vide No. ACDP/MGNREGA/7380- 83 dated 19.09.2018 at (S. No. 4, 5 and 6) Technical sanction No. 564 for an amount of Rs. 9.41 lacs Technical sanction No. 565 for an amount of Rs. 5 LPA No. 39/2025 10.00 lacs. 3. Supply and fabrication of aprox. 18 Mtrs span and steel truss foot bridge including carriage at site (on the approved rates) at Chakriban (at Nabana Kassi). Administrative approval granted vide order No. ACDP/MGNREGA/7380- 83 dated 19.09.2018 (S. No. 7, 8, 9 & 10) Technical sanction No. 201 for an amount of Rs. 9.67 lacs Technical sanction No. 202 for an amount of Rs. 9.15 lacs Technical sanction No. 203 for an amount of Rs. 3.30 lacs. 4. Supply and fabrication of aprox. 15.50 Mtrs span and steel truss foot bridge including carriage at site (on the approved rates) at Chakriban. Administrative approval granted vide order No. ACDP/MGNREGA/7380- 83 dated 19.09.2018 (S. No. 11. 12, 13 & 14) Technical sanction No. 199 for an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs Technical sanction No. 200 for an amount of Rs. 9.41 lacs 5. Supply and fabrication of aprox. 21.50 Mtrs span and steel truss foot bridge including carriage at site (on the approved rates) at Kalaban. Administrative approval granted vide order No. ACDP/MGNREGA/7380- 83 dated 19.09.2018 (S. No. 15, 16, 17 & 18) Technical sanction No. 1141 for an amount of Rs. 9.41lacs Technical sanction No. 1142 for an amount of Rs. 9.15 lacs Technical sanction No. 1143 for an amount of Rs. 2.78 lacs 6. Supply and fabrication of aprox. 15.50 Mtrs span and steel truss foot bridge including carriage at site (on the approved rates) at Dodi. Administrative approval granted vide order No. ACDP/MGNREGA/7380- 83 dated 19.09.2018 (S. No. 19, 20, 21 & 22) Technical sanction No. 646 for an amount of Rs. 9.41lacs Technical sanction No. 677 for an amount of Rs. 3.39 lacs Technical sanction No. 680 for an amount of Rs. 8.46 lacs (additional Technical sanction which the petitioner at present is not in possession) 7. Supply and fabrication of aprox. 32 Mtrs span and steel truss foot bridge including carriage at site (on the approved rates) at Rajpura. Administrative approval granted vide order No. ACDP/MGNREGA/7380- 83 dated 19.09.2018 (S. No. 23, 24, 25,26, 27 & 28) Technical sanction No. 446for an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs Technical sanction No. 477 for an amount of Rs. 9.22 lacs Technical sanction No. 449 for an amount of Rs. 9.05 lacs 6 LPA No. 39/2025 (additional Technical sanction No. 448 for an amount of Rs. 4.75 lacs 9. This is true that the appellants were directed to consider the claim of respondents for payment of admitted amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract agreement and in case of rejection, speaking order was to be passed. 10. Appellants have raised the issue of jurisdiction, by urging that while exercising contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel beyond the order, which forms the subject matter of contempt petition and new directions beyond that order cannot be issued. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: “11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised thus: I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of “jurisdiction to punish for contempt” and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in 7 LPA No. 39/2025 which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra- court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). The first point is answered accordingly. 15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories: (i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case. (ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case. (iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case. (iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. 16. The term “judgment” occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, “judgments” for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not “judgments” for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent.” (emphasis added) 11. This Court is conscious of limited jurisdiction of the court in the contempt proceedings and it is rightly submitted by Mr. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG that no new direction other than the one issued by the Court 8 LPA No. 39/2025 through the medium of order passed in original proceedings, can be issued in the contempt proceedings, but at the same time, the term “consideration” often employed by the courts while issuing directions to consider the claim(s) of a litigant, does not mean the superficial/cosmetic examination of the claim or considering the claim on the basis of wrong facts, just to wriggle out of the contempt proceedings. When the court issues directions to a particular authority to consider the claim of the litigant, least as is expected from the said authority is that it applies its mind on the correct facts/material and then to arrive at a particular decision. 12. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “consideration” as an act of thinking carefully something. The “consideration” is a mental process for deciding or judging something on careful examination of the facts/material. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of „Barium Chemicals Ltd. and another v Sh. A. J. Rana and others’, 1972 AIR 591 has explained the process of consideration by observing as under: “The words 'considers it necessary' postulate that the authority concerned has thought over the matter deliberately and with care and it has been found necessary as a result of such thinking to pass the order. The dictionary meaning of the word 'consider' is 'to view attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, meditate on, give heed to, take note of, to think deliberately, be think oneself. to reflect' (vide Shorter Oxford Dictionary). According to Words & Phrases-Permanent Edn: Vol. 8A to 'consider' means to think with care. It is also mentioned that to 'consider' is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to ponder; study; meditate upon, think or reflect with care. It is, therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question is sine quenon for the making of the order. If the impugned order were to show that there has been no careful thinking or proper application of the mind as to 9 LPA No. 39/2025 the necessity of obtaining and examining the documents specified in the order, the essential requisite. to the makings of the order would be held to be non-existent.” 13. As far as consideration order dated 12.09.2023 is concerned, it is stated that there was no technical sanction and administrative approval, and the work has been done without adhering to the codal formalities. It is evident that the appellants have nowhere pleaded in their memo of appeal that the findings recorded by the learned writ court that the administrative approval and technical sanction have since been accorded for execution of the work of Buffliaz, are wrong or contrary to record. The material placed on record before the learned Single Judge in the form of administrative approval dated 19.09.2018 has not been denied by the appellants. Had the appellants denied the grant of administrative approval and technical sanction, as pleaded by the respondents, the appellants would have been right in contending that there were no administrative approval and technical sanction. In such eventuality, the contempt proceedings may have been dropped. In the memo of appeal, it has been stated that the out of seven works, only five works were executed, and one work remained incomplete, but the claim of the respondents has not been rejected on that count. Rather the appellants have admitted in consideration order dated 12.09.2023 that Deputy Commissioner, Poonch in response to DO dated 24.07.2023 has requested for release of 145.21 lacs. 14. The learned Single Judge has simply directed the appellants to pass fresh consideration order in light of the administrative approval already 10 LPA No. 39/2025 accorded and documents already placed on record with their response to the compliance report filed by the appellants. Once the authority is directed to consider the particular claim, it is bounden duty of the authority to consider the same in accordance with law and not as per its own „whims and caprices‟. We do not find that any new direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge while exercising contempt jurisdiction. The order dated 18.09.2024 may cause some inconvenience to the appellants but it does not have the trappings of „judgment‟. Appellants can demonstrate before the learned Single Judge in respect of meaningful compliance of the judgment passed by the learned writ court. 15. After examining the order impugned, we do not find any reason to show indulgence. Accordingly, the present appeal is found to be misconceived and is dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 29.05.2025 Rakesh PS Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No KARAM CHAND 2025.05.29 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document