9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue Officer, Sub- Divisional Office, for seeking declaration under Section 143 or 144 of that Act, with regard to the question as to whether the land in suit was abadi land before the consolidation and even thereafter. The Revenue Officer by his order, dated September 3, 1970, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut, who, by his order dated April 29, 1972, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs. Against the decree of the Commissioner, the defendants preferred Revenue Second Appeal No. 226(2) of 1971-72 before the Revenue Board. Along with the petition of appeal, they made an application for stay of the execution of the ejectment decree. The Board of Revenue passed an order on June 12, 1972, staying the execution of the decree. The opposite party therein, moved an application for vacation of the ex-parte stay order. The application for vacation of stay order came up for hearing before the appellant, herein, in his capacity as Member of the Revenue Board, on October 23, 1973. The respondent, Shri Vinay Chandra Misra appeared as a counsel in that Court on behalf of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... why he be not proceeded against for committing contempt of Court. The appellant received this notice on November 5, 1973 and filed his reply supported by an affidavit dated November 8, 1973, in which he denied the allegations in the petition levelled by Shri V. C. Misra. The latter also filed a rejoinder affidavit dated December 10, 1973, in which he reiterated the allegations in his petition and in the Annexures thereto. A preliminary objection was taken by the appellant before the High Court, that the latter was not competent to take cognizance of the contempt alleged to have been committed in the petition moved by Shri Misra without any reference from the subordinate court or without a motion by the Advocate-General. Reliance in this connection was placed on sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. The High Court rejected this preliminary objection with these observations: Since Article 215 (of the Constitution) states that every High Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all the powers of such a Court, it follows that through that Article the Constitution preserved to the High Courts its power as a Court of Record to punish contempt of subordinate Courts. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petent. In this connection Shri Goyal has referred to several decisions, including that in Purshottam Das Goyal v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. S. Dhillon, whereby it has been held that it could not be the intention of the legislature to provide for an appeal to this Court as a matter of right from each and every interlocutory order passed in the proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the Act, by the High Court. An order or decision in order to be appealable under Section 19(1) of the Act, must be such that it decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court affecting the right of the party aggrieved. Reference has also been made to the decision of this Court in V. C. Shukla v. State. This objection of Shri Goyal has been rendered merely academic, because as a matter of abundant caution, the appellant herein has filed a petition for grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, also. The matter being important, the leave to appeal has been granted to him. The controversy in this appeal centres round the question, whether the High Court can take suo motu cognizance of contempt of a subordinate/inferior court when it is not moved in either of the tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... administrative control over them under Article 235 of the Constitution does not vest in the High Court. Under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The Court of Revenue Board, therefore, in the instant case, is a court subordinate to the High Court within the contemplation of Section 10 of the Act. Section 14 provides for the procedure where contempt is committed in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. Section 15 is very material for our purpose. It provides in regard to cognizance of `criminal contempt' in cases other than those falling under Section 14. The material portion of Section 15 reads thus : (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by- (a) the Advocate-General, or (b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General. (2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... punish contempt of a subordinate court, on its own motion. It is, however, to be noted that Section 15 does not specify the basis or the source of information on which the High Court can act on its own motion. If the High Court acts on information derived from its own sources, such as from a perusal of the records of a subordinate court or on reading a report in a newspaper or hearing a public speech, without there being any reference from the subordinate court or the Advocate-General, it can be said to have taken cognizance on its own motion. But if the High Court is directly moved by a petition by a private person feeling aggrieved, not being the Advocate-General, can the High Court refuse to entertain the same on the ground that it has been made without the consent in writing of the Advocate-General? It appears to us that the High Court, has, in such a situation, a discretion to refuse to entertain the petition, or to take cognizance on its own motion on the basis of the information supplied to it in that petition. If the petitioner is a responsible member of the legal profession, it may act suo motu, more so, if the petitioner-advocate, as in the instant case, prays that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
