M/S RAJURESHWAR & ASSOCIATESversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

                     [2013] 3 S.C.R. 461


           MIS RAJURESHWAR & ASSOCIATES                            A
                        v.
           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
      (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17688/2013)
                        APRIL 8, 2013
                                                                   B
  [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

      Contempt of Court - Judgment and order passed by a
particular Court, especially the Supreme Court if alleged not
to have been complied, will have to be taken care of and           C
addressed by the Court which passed the order sought to be
complied - In the instant case, the petitioner wrongly
approached the High Court for initiating contempt
proceedings related to a direction of the Supreme Court and
the same was rightly not entertained by the High Court -           D
Challenge to said order of High Court by special leave
petition, therefore, dismissed.
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 17688 of 2013.
                                                                   E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2011 of the
High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in
Contempt Petition No. ~75 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 5219
of 2001.
                                                                   F
    M.Y. Deshmukh for the Petitioner.

    The following order of the Court was delivered by

                            ORDER
                                                                   G
     1. Delay condoned.

    2. This special leave petition is directed against the order
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad passed in Contempt Petition No. 175 of 2005
                                                                   H
                              461
    462     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A arising out of Writ Petition No.5219 of 2001, which was rejected
  as the learned Single Judge was of the view that the contempt
  petition related to a direction for payment of interest at the rate
  of 11 % p.a. since there was a mistake in the calculation for the
  period in which the amount was temporarily invested in
B pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court.

        3. It appears that the petitioner had filed a contempt petition
  in the High Court of Bombay alleging that the directions and
  order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2002
  whereby this Court had allowed interest to be claimed by the
C petitioner @ 11 % since the sale of the property for which the
  petitioner was a bidder, had been wrongly cancelled with which
  this Court refused to interfere but maintained the order of refund
  amount along with 11 % p.a. simple interest within a period of
  four months.                                       "
D
        4. The Petitioner felt aggrieved as the amount accruing
  towards 11 % interest as per computation of the petitioner had
  not been deposited by the respondent State. However, the
  petitioner did not move this Court which had passed the order
E alleging contempt but moved the High Court of Bombay stating
  that the Respondents have indulged in contempt as they did
  not deposit the amount accrued towards 11 % interest which
  was directed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8539
  of 2002. The learned Single Judge dismissed the contempt
F petition as he was of the view that the contempt petition
  alleging non-compliance of the judgment and order passed by
  the Supreme Court will have to be addressed by the Supreme
  Court itself and not by the High Court, especially when no such
  liberty was given by the Supreme Court to initiate any
G proceeding in the High Court alleging non-compliance of its
  order. Learned Single Judge has also relied upon certain
  authorities in support of the view that contempt petition cannot
  be entertained by the High Court alleging non-compliance of
  the order passed by the Supreme Court.
H
    RAJURESHWAR & ASSOCIATES v. STATE OF                      463
            MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
      5. Having perused the reasons in the light of the              A
submission of the counsel for the petitioner, we find no infirmity
in the view taken by the High Court as it cannot be disputed
that the judgment and order passed by a particular Court,
especially the Supreme Court if alleged not to have been
complied, will have to be taken care of and addressed by the         B
Court which passed the order sought to be complied. The
petitioner, therefore, wrongly approached the High Court for
initiating contempt proceedings and the same has rightly not
been entertained. Challenge to the said order by this special
leave petition, therefore, is not fit to be entertained; hence the   c
special leave petition is dismissed.

    6. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that if this
Court is of the view that the petitioner had approached the
wrong forum for initiating contempt proceedings, he should not
be deprived of the liberty to approach the appropriate forum,        D
which is the Supreme Court, for initiating fresh contempt
proceedings alleging non-compliance of the judgment and
order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2002.

     7. We make it clear that we are not coming in the way of        E
the petitioner to take any appropriate steps before any
appropriate Forum for compliance of the order and judgment
passed by this Court and therefore, he is at liberty to take
recourse to any legal remedy that may be available to him under
the law including a contempt petition which obviously will be        F
dealt with by the appropriate Court on its own merits.

B.B.B.                                          SLP dismissed.