9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Judge to assume that it was the petitioner who obstructed the administration of justice so as to justify initiation of contempt proceedings against an officer who joined five years later on the ground that he had sought the case number and the date of the order which was to be implemented in order to forestall the same when in fact it was already not implemented for a long number of years which was more than four years prior to the appellant's posting in the High Court. As already stated, an officer in the registry who joined approximately five years later prior to the interim order of stay which was passed, he cannot legitimately be hauled up for contempt merely on unfounded assumption and speculation that it was he who was instrumental in obstructing the administration of justice by ensuring that the order of stay may not be implemented. In fact, when the Registrar (Vigilance) sought a copy of the interim order of stay, it was his duty to specify the case number and the date of the order as it cannot be expected that the copy of the order could be sent to the Registrar (Vigilance) without the case number or its date. In any view, it would be too far fetched to infer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assumption and impression gathered by the learned single Judge to the effect that the appellant had obstructed the course of administration of justice by ensuring that the interim order of stay dated 22.03.2001 passed by the learned single Judge against implementation of the award of compensation as also direction to the Registrar General (Vigilance) to initiate inquiry against the then Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, be not implemented. The learned Judge further inferred that this was an attempt on the part of the appellant herein to shield the Judge of the MACT from facing the vigilance inquiry and hence contempt proceeding has been initiated against the appellant. 3. As the appellant was not a party in the writ petition in the High Court in which contempt proceeding has been initiated, he sought leave of this Court to file Special Leave Petition which was granted and an order of stay against initiation of contempt proceeding was also passed by this Court on 19.01.2007. 4. The matter thereafter was heard finally at the admission stage itself with consent of the counsel for the parties. At the outset, the appellant assailed the impugned order on the plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to direct that a copy of the said order be sent to the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court who shall look into the matter from the administrative side implying enquiry against the learned Judge, MACT who had passed the award in favour of the claimants/respondents. It would be appropriate to highlight at this stage that the Appellant, Shri Dinesh Gupta was not functioning as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the High Court on the said date in the year 2001 as he was posted as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) at Jaipur Bench in the High Court several years later on 05.01.2005. (ii) However, during the intervening period in order to comply the order of the High Court dated 22.03.2001, the Registrar General (Vigilance) vide letter dated 20.04.2001, requested for a copy of the Memo of the writ petition and a copy of the Award of the MACT, Jaipur dated 15.01.2001 passed in Claim Petition No 1782 of 1999. In response to the same, a certified copy of the writ petition was sent by the then Deputy Registrar (Judicial) but in view of Rule 883 of The Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 1952, a request was made to the Registrar General (Vigilance) to obtain a copy of the Award from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Yours truly, SD/- REG. GEN (VIGILANCE) The letter thus merely stated that the Deputy Registrar should take pains to forward the copy of required judgment and the same be sent to the office of the Registrar General (Vigilance) positively within 20 days of receipt of the said letter. (i) In response to the aforesaid letter dated 09.05.2005, the appellant traced out the number of the concerned writ petition and informed the Registrar General (Vigilance) vide his response letter dated 18.05.2005 that the matter was pending consideration and as and when it is disposed of, the copy of the judgment would be sent. Six months thereafter, the Registrar General (Vigilance) again wrote a letter on 13.12.2005 that the desired judgment be sent positively within 20 days of the receipt of the letter but he again failed to indicate the number of the case in which the judgment was required by him. However, the appellant this time responded to the same by writing to the Registrar (Vigilance) vide letter dated 22.12.2005, that the writ petition entitled United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Ors. had been admitted in which notice had been issued and recovery of the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned single Judge that it had to be taken note of seriously as it was an attempt to overreach the directions of the Court and prevent its compliance creating obstructions in the administration of justice. The learned single Judge therefore ordered to issue notice to the then Deputy Registrar (Judicial) who had sent the letter dated 22.12.2005 enquiring about the case number and the date of the order after tracing out the name and his present designation as to why contempt proceeding should not be initiated against him and he be not punished for contempt of court. The learned Judge further ordered that a separate Contempt Petition be registered and notice be issued to the contemnor making it returnable within six weeks. The writ petition was ordered to be listed a week thereafter. 9. Since, the appellant Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta was the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on the relevant date i.e. 22.12.2005, a contempt notice was served on him which took him by surprise as according to him, he had neither acted in any manner which could lead to obstruction to the cause of justice nor had role in any manner whatsoever to ensure that the interim order of stay dated 22.03.2001 staying execut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2005 could have possibly no role for shielding or protecting the officer who had retired on 31.05.2003 and the enquiry against him was ordered to be closed even by the learned single Judge himself vide order dated 16.10.2006. 12. On a scrutiny of the sequence of events narrated hereinbefore, we are clearly of the view in the first place that the contempt alleged against the appellant would not amount to a criminal contempt because the alleged contempt even if made out would clearly at the best be of a civil nature, which is evident from Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 which lays down as follows: (a) contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt; (b) civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; (c) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion, the answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of the well-settled legal position reflected in a catena of decisions of this Court that contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences, non-compliance of the same cannot be held to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing the serious consequence including imposition of punishment. However, when the Courts are confronted with a question as to whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case of a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it may be, will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct to be too speculative based on assumption as the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al superannuated, the petitioner was not even posted in the High Court as he was posted in the High Court, Jaipur Bench as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for the first time in the year 2005. Hence, what transpired between the date of the order of interim stay passed in 2001 upto 2003 when the learned Judge, MACT Shri Bansal retired, no malafide or ulterior motive can at all be attributed to the appellant herein Shri Gupta so as to initiate a contempt proceeding against him. Therefore, even though the order was not complied, the reason or liability for its non-compliance cannot be fastened on the appellant herein- Shri Gupta so as to justify initiation of contempt proceeding against him. Hence, non-compliance of the interim order of stay passed by the learned single Judge way back in the year 2001 which was passed much prior to 2005, when the appellant joined as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the High Court cannot be attributed to him. The appellant obviously could not have been expected to orally remember the particulars of each and every order passed by High Court on judicial side and sent to the registry, which was not implemented. Hence, if he wrote to the Registrar (Vigilance) see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer who was posted at the relevant time and had failed to communicate the order to the concerned Court which had to implement it. But, after an unusually long lapse of time, which in this case is more than four years, an officer like the appellant who subsequently joined the registry, cannot be attributed with an oblique motive of obstructing the cause of justice merely because he had sought the case number and date of the order of stay from the Registrar (Vigilance) in order to furnish a copy of the order which was required by the Registrar (Vigilance). In fact, when the Registrar (Vigilance) sought a copy of the interim order of stay, it was his duty to specify the case number and the date of the order as it cannot be expected that the copy of the order could be sent to the Registrar (Vigilance) without the case number or its date. In any view, it would be too far fetched to infer that the same was done to shield the learned Judge of the MACT Shri Bansal against whom vigilance enquiry was ordered, completely missing the relevant point that he had already superannuated two years earlier after which the learned Single Judge himself had ordered for closure of the vigilance enquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
