By Alok Mohit
Patna: The Patna High Court has strongly criticised government officials for their persistent non-compliance with various court orders, which has resulted in the filing of thousands of contempt petitions. The rebuke was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey during the hearing of a contempt petition filed by Sanjay Kumar, a resident of Basantpatti village in Sheohar district.
The court observed that in numerous cases, its orders were not being implemented unless a contempt petition was filed. “We have come across many cases where orders of this court are not being implemented without the filing of a contempt petition,” the judges remarked.
The case in question involved a petition related to a sawmill, where the court’s order had not been complied with even after nearly two years past the deadline. Taking serious note of this non-compliance, the court had previously summoned Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, N. Jawahar Babu, to explain why contempt of court proceedings or penalties should not be initiated.
After hearing the official’s explanation, the court remarked that it was only after being summoned that the officials “opened their eyes to the issue.” The Department of Environment, Climate Change, and Forest informed the court of certain administrative difficulties in addressing the petitioner’s grievance, leading to further delays.
In light of the non-compliance, the court directed that a cost of Rs 3,000 be paid to the petitioner. The court also reiterated its concern over the frequent non-compliance with its orders, stating, “It has become a rule, rather than an exception, that a litigant, having obtained an order from a constitutional court, is not sure of the order bearing the fruit of relief in actual terms.”
The bench further expressed frustration over the fact that “every litigant is compelled, under varied circumstances, to knock on the doors of the court repeatedly with the same cause.” The court criticised the “insouciant attitude of certain officials” that had reduced the solemn constitutional power of contempt to that of an execution proceeding. It noted that in “every second instance of remedial orders given by the high court,” the petitioner is required to file a contempt case to have the order enforced.
Despite repeated observations, the court noted, the respondents had not reformed their approach towards implementing its orders. “Contempt petitions are filed in thousands,” the court observed, adding that, in most cases, after a writ or appeal was allowed, the state respondents or university authorities did not pursue further litigation before a higher forum until a contempt petition was filed. “They do not open their eyes until the filing of a contempt of court petition,” the court remarked.
Patna High Court also highlighted that when a contempt notice was issued, officials either implemented the court’s orders after several years of delay or sought time to approach a higher forum, such as the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) bench or the Supreme Court. While acknowledging the respondents’ fundamental right to approach higher forums, the court criticised the unnecessary delays and “sleeping over the matter,” stating that almost every petition was followed by a contempt petition. This practice, the court emphasised, is “deprecated.”
