Patna High Court Exempts SSB Director General From Personal Appearance In Contempt Case
The Patna Excessive Courtroom put aside an order directing the non-public look of Director Normal, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) in a contempt case.
A Letters Patent Attraction was filed earlier than the Patna Excessive Courtroom towards the order, whereby the Director Normal, SSB, has been directed to be personally current in Courtroom.
The Bench of Performing Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy noticed, “We clearly reply to it by holding such an order to be dangerous and never warranted within the info of the case. We don’t want to intrude with the contempt jurisdiction of the discovered Single Choose, besides to the extent that we don’t approve of the order of summoning the senior most officer within the Directorate in such circumstances when the overall compliance of the judgment of the Excessive Courtroom is pending consideration earlier than the ACC, falling below the PMO.”
Advocate Rakesh Kumar represented the Appellant, whereas Advocates Ok.N. Singh(ASG) and Rupak Kumar represented the Respondents.
Case Temporary
A Letters Patent Attraction was filed earlier than the Patna Excessive Courtroom towards the order, whereby the Director Normal, SSB has been directed to be personally current in Courtroom.
On being advised that the judgment of the Excessive Courtroom has not been totally complied with, the Courtroom directed for the looks of the Director Normal, SSB with a caveat that such summon could be efficient provided that the order has not been complied with.
The Respondent contended that the enchantment isn’t maintainable.
Courtroom’s Evaluation
Whereas coping with the query of maintainability of the enchantment, the Courtroom relied on the choice of the Supreme Courtroom in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Financial institution Ltd. and others v. Chunilal Nanda & Ors (2006), whereby it was held that orders which can trigger some inconvenience or some prejudice to a celebration, however which don’t lastly decide the rights and obligations of the events, are appealable.
“The logic behind this proposition is that the time period ‘judgment’ occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not solely the judgments as outlined in Part 2 (9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC, but in addition different orders which, although could not lastly and conclusively decide the rights of the events with regard to any or all issues in controversy, could have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which can have an effect on the very important and invaluable rights and obligations of the events”, the Courtroom held.
Additional, the Courtroom referred to Commonplace Working Process (SOP) on Private Look of Authorities Officers in Courtroom Continuing and opined that within the current circumstance that the order of summoning the Director Normal, SSB is farcical and would serve no function.
“To that extent, we put aside the order dated 20.06.2025 handed in MJC No. 3555 of 2024 with a request to the discovered Single Choose to not insist for the non-public look of the Director Normal, SSB. There shall be no necessity for the Director Normal, SSB to look earlier than the Courtroom on 04.07.2025”, the Courtroom noticed.
Accordingly, the LPA was disposed of.
Trigger Title: Amrit Mohan Prasad V. Kumar Chandra Vikram
