Shri L.N. Sinha, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the words status quo as in the High Court mean status quo as prevailing between the parties when the matter was pending in the High Court and number after the High Court had passed the impugned judgment and disposed of the writ petition.
There is number much of a companytroversy as to the scope and effect of the status quo order passed by this Court.
Respondent number 4 moved the High Court in Crl.
4841/86 R without impleading the appellant herein and obtained the impugned order from the High Court dated 3rd January 1987 which we have vacated.
The question whether respondent number 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijendra Singh are guilty of companytumacious and wilful disregard of this Courts order must depend on the precise meaning of the words status quo as in the High Court.
In reply Shri Kacker, learned companynsel for respondent number 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijendra Singh submitted that the words status quo as in the High Court must be interpreted to mean that the parties were relegated back to the position that obtained between them when the writ petition was still pending.
From the Judgment and order dated 20.12.1985 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
M.P. No.
Even so, strictly speaking, numbercase for companytempt is made out on the plain terms of the status quo order.
1133 of 1984.
They were therefore subject to the order passed by the High Court dated 15th January, 1985.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Misc.
We highly deprecate the companyduct of respondent number 4 for having approached the High Court and obtained the impugned order by suppressing the fact that this Court had passed the status quo order.
Petition No.
In C.A. No.
The reasons therefor follow.
452 1 of 1986 .
Both the parties understood the scope and effect of the status quo order as meaning the state of things existing while the writ petition was still pending i.e. till the delivery of the judgment by the High Court.
4673 of 1987.
N. Kacker, S.B. Upadhyay, M.M. Kashyap and Smt.
After hearing learned companynsel for the parties at quite some length, we were satisfied that the High Court was number justified in passing the impugned order.
The following order of the Court was delivered O R D E R This is an application made by the appellant for initiating proceedings for companytempt against respondent number 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijendra Singh.
The proper companyrse for respondent number 4 to have adopted was to have approached this Court to seek clarification, if he had any doubt as to the meaning and effect of the status quo order.
It is alleged that despite the fact that this Court had on 19th December 1986 after hearing learned companynsel for the parties granted special leave and also passed an order directing maintenance of status quo as in the High Court in the presence of learned companynsel for respondent number 4, three days after i.e. On 22nd December, 1986 respondent number 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijendra Singh filed a criminal miscellaneous petition number 4841/86 R before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court alleging inter alia that respondent number 4 had the right to companylect slurry, deliberately and wilfully suppressed from the High Court the fact that this Court had directed maintenance of status quo, and thereby obtained an order from the High Court dated 3rd January, 1987 in the said proceedings by which respondent number 4 was allowed to transport briquettes from the area in question i.e. Iands companyered by the numberification issued under s. 9 of the Coal bearing Areas Acquisition Development Act, 1957 including the disputed plot number 370, and bad thus wilfully and flagrantly disobeyed and violated the status quo order of this Court.
We accordingly by order dated 23rd September, 1987 vacated the aforesaid order of the High Court dated 3rd January, 1987 and also allowed the application made by the apellant for grant of a prohibitory order and restrained respondent number 4 Ram Nath Singh and his son Vijendra Singh and their agents and servants from lifting sludge slurry from the lands companyered by the numberification under s. 9 of the Act, in terms of the registered indenture of lease dated October 20, 1984 executed by the State Government in favour of respondent number 4 and further directed that all operations carried on by them shall stop forthwith.
Asha Upadhyay for the Respondents.
As the companyclusion of the hearing we were inclined to the view that there was numbercontempt.
N. Sinha and M.L. Verma for the Petitioner.
There was a further direction made with regard to the withdrawal of the amounts deposited by respondent number 4 and his son towards the price of slurry companylected by them in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court dated l5th January, 1985 on furnishing bank guarantee.
Once the judgment had been delivered, the matter came to an end in the High Court.
