Patna High Court Exempts SSB Director General From Personal Appearance In Contempt Case

The Patna High Court set aside an order directing the personal appearance of Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) in a contempt case.

A Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the Patna High Court against the order, whereby the Director General, SSB, has been directed to be personally present in Court.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed, “We clearly respond to it by holding such an order to be bad and not warranted in the facts of the case. We do not wish to interfere with the contempt jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge, except to the extent that we do not approve of the order of summoning the senior most officer in the Directorate in such circumstances when the total compliance of the judgment of the High Court is pending consideration before the ACC, falling under the PMO.”

Advocate Rakesh Kumar represented the Appellant, while Advocates K.N. Singh(ASG) and Rupak Kumar represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

A Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the Patna High Court against the order, whereby the Director General, SSB has been directed to be personally present in Court.

On being told that the judgment of the High Court has not been fully complied with, the Court directed for the appearance of the Director General, SSB with a caveat that such summon would be effective only if the order has not been complied with.

The Respondent contended that the appeal is not maintainable.

Court’s Analysis

While dealing with the question of maintainability of the appeal, the Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and others v. Chunilal Nanda & Ors (2006), wherein it was held that orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, are appealable.

“The logic behind this proposition is that the term ‘judgment’ occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2 (9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of the parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties”, the Court held.

Further, the Court referred to Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on Personal Appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceeding and opined that in the present circumstance that the order of summoning the Director General, SSB is farcical and would serve no purpose.

“To that extent, we set aside the order dated 20.06.2025 passed in MJC No. 3555 of 2024 with a request to the learned Single Judge not to insist for the personal appearance of the Director General, SSB. There shall be no necessity for the Director General, SSB to appear before the Court on 04.07.2025”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the LPA was disposed of.

Cause Title: Amrit Mohan Prasad V. Kumar Chandra Vikram

Click here to read/download Judgement.