Rohit Arya, J:
1. This contempt petition is filed by Shashkiya Mahavidhyalayin Shikshak Sangh, Madhya Pradesh through its President Rakesh Shrivastava alleging non-compliance of order dated 21/11/2013 passed in W.P. No. 20357/2013 in the case of Smt. Kirshna Sharma and others v. State of M.P. and others) by the learned single Judge sitting at Principal Seat, Jabalpur.
2. Having perused the order complained of, three fold questions prima facie arise viz. (i) Whether, contempt petition can be filed at Gwalior alleging non-compliance of the order passed by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur; (ii) Whether, such contempt petition can be filed by a person who is neither petitioner nor respondent in the order passed by the Principal Seat, Jabalpur; and (iii) Whether, such contempt petition can be filed against persons who were not party to the writ petition decided by Principal Seat, Jabalpur by the order complained of.
3. As regards the first question, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order complained of has applicability throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, contempt petition can be filed at Gwalior. Secondly, since the petitioner is a Shashkiya Mahavidhyalayin Shikshak Sangh and therefore, even if, individuals had approached the Principal Seat in W.P.No. 20357/2013 (s) wherein, the order was passed, the contempt filed by Shashkiya Mahavidhyalayin Shikshak Sangh can be maintained against the order complained of. Thirdly, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents arrayed are either the officials of the Election Commission or the State Government functionaries, therefore, accountable for non-compliance of the order, even if, they were not parties in the writ petition.
4. Having considered the submissions put forth, this Court is of the opinion that as per the notifications dated 28th November, 1968 and 23rd June, 1971 issued by President of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at Jabalpur and Benches at Indore and Gwalior has already been assigned, therefore, contempt petition arising out of an order passed by Principal Seat, Jabalpur, in the opinion of this Court can be filed only before the Principal Seat and not at Benches established at Indore and Gwalior.
5. Secondly, Shashkiya Mahavidhyalayin Shikshak Sangh was not a party in W.P. No. 20357/2013 (S). Petitioners in that writ petition were individuals, posted and working at Jabalpur. Besides averments made and prayer sought in the aforesaid writ petition, were in their behalf. Collector-cum-District Election Officer, Jabalpur and Up Zila Nirvachan Adhikari, District Jabalpur were arrayed as respondents No. 4 and 5. Further, in the normal parlance, the order passed is to be understood in the context of petitioners in the petition. Even otherwise, if the petitioner claimed noncompliance of the order, ought to have filed a contempt petition before the Principal Seat where the order was passed, that has not been done, therefore, present petitioner in the contempt petition cannot take undue advantage of its status as Sangh to prefer contempt petition at Gwalior Bench of the High Court other than the Principal Seat alleging noncompliance of the order passed at Principal Seat. Further, if the petitioner had any grievance, he ought to have taken recourse to independent proceedings in accordance with law for ventilating its grievance before the appropriate forum, that has also not been done. Therefore, contempt petition at the instance of Sangh is found to be not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
6. Further, admittedly respondent No. 3 was not party to the writ petition filed at Jabalpur. Besides, there is nothing on record to suggest that he has any role to play in the context of the order complained of, more so, after enforcement of Code of Conduct by the Election Commission. That apart, upon perusal of the contempt petition, it is well explicit that no grievance of any individual or group of individuals is made to maintain the aforesaid contempt petition in context whereof order passed by Principal Seat and annexed in the contempt petition. Moreover, not a single representation appears to have been filed for ventilating of any grievance, before the appropriate authority, as such, the proceedings instituted is based on skeleton petition. Even otherwise, it is explicit after having gone through the order passed on 21/11/2013 in W.P. No. 20357/2013, Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jabalpur has issued directions for adherence to the guidelines issued by the Court in judgments quoted therein.
7. Respondents have submitted that the Election Commission of India has already issued a circular on 9/8/2004 to Chief Election Officer of all States directing that seniority of the officials be taken into consideration while assigning election duties and the principles mentioned therein should be followed strictly.
8. Further a Division Bench of this Court, at Indore Bench while deciding W.P. No. 1536/2004 has already taken note of the guidelines issued by the Election commission in para 8 of the order and based thereupon has disposed of the writ petition by directing petitioner therein to make a representation to State Election Commission in the context of Municipal and Panchayat Elections for redressal of his grievances. On record the respondents have also referred the guidelines issued by the Election Commission vide circular dated 9/8/2004, which are applicable uniformly.
9. Constitutional Power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act is independent, original and penal in nature. Therefore, need to be exercised with due care and caution. Action complained of must have the tendency to obstruct administration of justice tantaamounting to lowering the prestige of Court and majesty of law to justify initiation of contempt proceedings. Contempt proceedings are not initiated on mere asking without factual foundation of jurisdictional nature. Constitutional power is conferred upon the High Court to ensure majesty of law on the touchstone of rule of law as no one is above the rule of law. Consequences flowing from such proceedings culminate into serious consequences, hence, power under the constitutional provision to punish for contempt is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, to ensure that the orders passed by the High Court are obeyed in right perspective and the mandates issued by this Court are duly abide by and respected. Turning to the factual matrix of the case in hand as indicated above, in absence of jurisdictional facts to invoke the contempt jurisdiction, the instant petition sans merits.
10. In the light of overall discussions, it appears that the instant proceedings have been instituted with populous approach misusing the process of law without any reasons and justification. Petition is therefore, dismissed being misconceived with cost of 5,000/- ( Five Thousand Only) payable to the Legal Aid Services of the High Court of M.P. within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order.
Petition dismissed.