NAZIR AHMED vs KHALID NASIM and 11 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which declined to initiate contempt of court proceedings regarding an alleged violation of a status quo order. The dispute arose between rival transporters who claimed that the respondents forcibly took possession of a specific bus stand location despite an existing status quo order. The petitioner sought contempt action following the dismissal of a related writ petition. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the contempt jurisdiction in the context of private disputes. The Court held that contempt proceedings are not an appropriate mechanism for settling personal vendettas or private grievances between rival parties. Emphasizing that the law must take its own course in such disputes, the Court affirmed the High Court's refusal to interfere. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, establishing the principle that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a tool for personal litigation or to resolve private conflicts between parties.
- Can contempt of court proceedings be utilized to settle personal vendettas between rival parties?
- Does the dismissal of a writ petition preclude the High Court from initiating contempt proceedings for the violation of a status quo order?
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The dispute in this case is between the two rival transporters. It was alleged that on the night between 6/7-10-1999, taking undue advantage of the status quo order dated 5- 10-1999 the respondents alongwith others forcibly and illegally took possession of base No,13 from M/s. Javed Group and Messrs Ali Barq Group. The matter was brought into the notice of the Administrator of the Bus Adda and complaint was lodged at the police station and an F.I.R. Was also registered. A writ petition was also filed, which was dismissed and thereafter as against the violation of the status quo order, an application was filed for taking appropriate action for contempt of the Court, but on account of the dismissal of the writ petition, the High Court declined to interfere vide order impugned. Leave to appeal is sought against the aforesaid order.
2. After hearing the learned counsel at length, we are of the view that the contempt proceedings cannot be resorted to for seeking personal vendetta. The parties are at loggerheads with each other and the law will take its own course. We do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.