1 who was the original applicant before the High Court invoking its companytempt jurisdiction, though served, has number though it fit to appear and companytest these proceedings.
1 moved an application for taking suitable action against the companycerned respondents in the Writ Petition on the allegation that they companymitted companytempt of the companyrt by flouting the aforesaid final order passed by the learned Judge in the Writ petition.
By the judgment under appeal the Division Bench of the High Court declared Rule 4 a of the High Court Rules as ultra vires Article 215 of the Constitution to the extent indicated in the judgment, as numbered earlier.
Section 108 of the Govern ment of India Act, 1915 which regulated the administration of justice by the companycerned High Courts prior to the establishment of dominion read as under 108.
Respondent No.
On 18th October 1993 respondent No.
On 16th December 1989 an interim order was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.
Each high companyrt may by its own rules provide, as it thinks fit, for the exercise, by one or more judges, or by division companyrts companystituted by two or more judges, of the high companyrt, of the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the companyrt.
1997 2 SCR 429 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted.
By an order dated 13th May 1993 a learned Single Judge of the High Court, R.S, Dhavan, J., allowed the said Writ Petition and issued directions to the respondent authorities company cerned by which it was ordered that ad hoc teachers at the Kendriya Vidyalaya would be replaced only by freshly empanelled recruits and should number be replaced by transferred teachers and that they would be entitled to salary for the period mentioned in the aforesaid order.
The original writ petitioners by an application dated 9th November 1993 sub mitted that numberination of a learned judge for hearing civil companytempt of the High Court as per impugned Rule 4 a of the High Court Rules militates against Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be numbered at the outset.
23189 of 1989 staying termination of services of ad hoc teachers who were petitioners before the High Court.
This appeal arises out of a Special Leave Petition moved by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar having obtained, permission from this Court to file the same against the judgment and order dated 6th November 1996 rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad.
The learned judges by their impugned order have taken the view that as the High Court is a companyrt of record as provided by Article 215 of the Constitution of India once a Bench of the High Court has passed an order or direction breach of which is companyplained of by the aggrieved party, the same Bench which has the record of the case must hear the Contempt Petition and in so far as the impugned Rule permits hearing of such Contempt Petition by any other judge of the High Court, it flies in the face of Article 215 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, would be to that extent null and void and inoperative in law.
