Antony Vs. P.S. Rana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- b. subhashan reddy, c.j.1. can a review lie in contempt cases is the question for consideration. r.p. nos. 947 and 948 of 2004 have been filed to review the orders passed in contempt case nos. 854/2004 and 807/2003. we need not enter the facts as the extra thing revolves around the maintainability of review against an order discharging the contemnors.2. under rule 6 of the contempt of court rules framed by the kerala high court including the explanation added in 2001, a contempt case filed before the single judge is to examine as to whether there exists a prima facie case for referring the case to a division bench or to drop the case in limine. if the learned single judge finds a prima facie case for the contemnor being tried, then he has to refer the matter to a division bench. in these two cases, the learned single judge found that there was a prima facie case and then referred the matter to division bench.3. having perused the pleadings and considering the contentions raised and having noticed rules 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the contempt of courts (high court of kerala) rules, as relevant for adjudication, the division bench, consisting of chief justice n.k. sodhi and justice a.k. basheer, held that, under rule 9, the division bench, before whom the matter is placed after reference by the learned single judge in a civil contempt, is entitled to consider as to whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding with contempt and then issuing notices to the respondents or to dismiss the contempt petition by dropping the proceedings. after holding so, the division bench considered the facts of each of the cases and was of the considered view that there was no case made out to proceed with the contempt and accordingly dropped the proceedings.4. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that dropping of proceedings by the division bench was without jurisdiction, as, after the learned single judge recording findings that there was prima facie case and referring the matter to the division bench, there was no justification for the division bench to drop the proceedings and was per force liable to proceed further and try the case and adjudicate on merits as to whether a contempt was made out or not. learned counsel for the respondents submit that all the contentions were considered by the earlier division bench and dismissed the contempt cases by dropping the proceedings, having found no prima facie case, and that, even after the reference by the learned single judge recording the findings that there was a prima facie case, the division bench was entitled to go into the matter again and then considered as to whether there was a prima facie case and that there is no provision for review of the said order passed by the division bench and the only remedy for the petitioners was to carry the matter to the supreme court under article 136 of the constitution of india. learned counsel for the petitioners replied that there is a power of review as the code of civil procedure is applicable and that under articles 215 and 226 of the constitution of india, there is implicit power of review and also cited the judgment of this court in devappa v. narayana rao, (1989 (2) klt 207) in support of his argument that the appellate court has got a power of review.5. review is a substantive law. the power of review has to be specifically conferred. there is no such power conferred in contempt of courts act, 1971. article 226 of the constitution of india has got no relevance in so far as review of the order passed in contempt case is concerned. article 215 of the indian constitution, no doubt, confers plenary powers on the high court to exercise the contempt jurisdiction. but, the procedure is regulated by the contempt of courts act. no doubt, contempt of courts act, 1971 is an addition to the plenary powers under article 215 and not in derogation of any other law relating to contempt of courts, obviously because article 215 is, a constitutional power conferred on the high court and such constitutional power cannot be abridged or annulled by any statutory enactment. that apart, section 22 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 itself says that the provisions of the said act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law relating to contempt of courts. if a contempt jurisdiction is invoked in exercise of plenary powers under article 215 of the indian constitution and an order is passed, it cannot be said that, by using the same plenary powers, the orders can either be withdrawn or reviewed. such powers, at the most, may be exercised in case the contemnor purges the act of contempt committed by him. but, in no event, the contemnor once discharged, can again be tried by seeking to exercise powers of review, as no such power exists. even though contempt action can be taken under article 215 of the indian constitution, it cannot be said that it confers uncontrolled/ unfettered or unbridled power on the high court to initiate contempt against any person at any length of time and commit him to prison for an unlimited term or impose fine by any quantum. the said factors of time and term of imprisonment and amount of quantum are circumscribed by sections 20 and 12 of the contempt of courts act, 1971. in view of the above, we do not see any power of review conferred on the high court in the contempt jurisdiction. in the judgment referred to supra (1989 (2) klt 207), the power is specifically conferred and as such is not applicable to the instant case. further, the power of review cannot be exercised as an appellate power. review jurisdiction restricts consideration only to correct errors apparent on the fact of the records. in the instant cases, the division bench has adverted to all the contentions and the provisions relating to contempt framed by this court referred to above and adjudicated the matter on merits. it is impermissible for this court to again look into those aspects on merits in a review jurisdiction, even if review jurisdiction exists.in the result, the two review petitions are dismissed.