9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (10) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... routes under licences issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh and in cases where the route passed into or through the State of Delhi, counter-signed by that State. Some of these persons had originally been granted permanent permits by the Regional Transport Authority. Pursuant to the policy of nationalisation of road transport business the State of Uttar Pradesh made declarations under section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Act, 1950, to the effect that road transport services on certain routes should be run and operated by the State Government in the manner mentioned in the relevant declarations and it also published schemes of road transport services under section 4 of that Act. In furtherance of its object the State Government began to serve notices on the licensees to stop plying buses on specified routes. The appellant thereupon applied to the Allahabad High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the State Government and its Minister of Transport to withdraw the declaration made under section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Act, 1950, In respect of their respective routes and directing them and their officers to refrain from proceeding further under sections 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court duly authorised in that behalf - The public has full and firm faith in the Supreme Court, but sources that are in the know say that the Government acts with partiality in the matter of appointment of those Hon'ble Judges as Ambassadors, Governors, High Commissioners, etc., who give judgments against Government but this has so far not made any difference in the firmness and justice of the Hon'ble Judges. 3. The leaflet containing the above offending paragraph having been brought to its notice the Court on the 16th September, 1954, issued the present rule and sent a copy of the rule to the Attorney-General for India. 4. All the respondents have been duly served. They have filed affidavits and have appeared before us by their respective advocates. The respondent, Sri Krishna Dutt Paliwal, the writer of the foreword, who was present in Court, made the following statement to the Court through his advocate, Sri Mohan Lal Saksena :- When I wrote the foreword I did not go through the whole manuscript. I was only told that it dealt with the working of the Transport Control. Now that my attention has been drawn to the passage objected to I am sorry that I wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... significant. It was circulated at a time when the appeal and the writ petitions including that of the respondent, Hira Lal Dixit, himself were posted on the cause list and the appeals, on the decision of which depended the fate of those numerous petitions, were being actually heard. The place of publication was also not without significance. It was distributed in the Court premises where a very large number of licences had foregathered. The fact of distribution of the leaflet in the Court premises was denied in the affidavit at this respondent but when a suggestion was made that evidence be recorded on this point the learned counsel appearing for him did not press for it and accepted the position that the leaflet was in fact distributed in the Court premises. In the circumstances, the only other question that remains is as to what was the meaning and purpose of the offending passage in the leaflet. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, Hira Lal Dixit, maintained that the passage in question was perfectly innocuous and only expressed a laudatory sentiment towards the Court and that such flattery could not possibly have the slightest effect on the minds of the Judges of this Aug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government on this occasion knowledgeable people will know that they had succumbed to the temptation and had given judgment in favour of the Government in expectation of future reward in the shape of high appointments of the kind mentioned in the passage. The object of writing this paragraph and particularly of publishing it at the time it was actually done was quite clearly to affect the minds of the Judges and to deflect them from the strict performance of their duties. The offending passage and the time and place of its publication certainly tended to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice and is a contempt of Court. 8. These is another aspect of the matter. Even if the passage about the Judges were not in the leaflet the rest would still amount to a serious contempt of Court. There is in it a strong denunciation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, a party to the appeal and the petitions, regarding the very matters then under the consideration of this Court. It was not fair comment on the proceedings but an attempt to prejudice the Court against the State and to stir up public feeling on the very question then pending for decision. The manner in which the leaflets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
