IMPORTANT POINT
Both Mrs. Megha Rude (Secretary of Institution) and Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund (an employee in Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench) who have forged Supreme Court s order dated 28.8.98 are guilty of Criminal Contempt under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as under Article 129 of Constitution and for such gross act on their part, they are sentenced to imprisonment for six months. However, contempt proceedings against Bineet Kumar Singh (representing C.P. Ed. Vidyarthi Sangh in writ petition) are dropped as inquiry officer has not found him responsible for the alleged forgery).

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 2(c)-Criminal Contempt-Constitution of India-Article 129-Contempt of Supreme Court-Lokmata Gandhi College of Sports, Yavatmal was run by the K.S.S.P. Mandal-The Government of Maharashtra did not grant permission to the institution for the academic year 1994-95 for C.P.Ed. (diploma) Course-Institution admitted several students and persuaded Government to grant permission-Government did grant permission for 94-95-Examination conducted in 1996-But many students could not appear because of lack of information-Writ filed in High Court-Dismissed-SLP filed in Supreme Court-Dismissed-Certified copy forged to direct Maharashtra Government to conduct the exam for 94-95 for those students-Maharashtra Government complained by an interlocutory application of 20.2.1999 of said forgery in S.C. order dated 28.8.1998-Notice issued to three contemners-Inquiry held by Registrar Judicial-Inquiry Report exonerating Bineet Kumar Singh but held Mrs. Megha Rude (Secretary of Institution) and Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund (an employee in Bombay High Court, Nagpur) guilty of said forged order-Whether be accepted? (Yes)-Effect-Megha Rude and Dilip Wamanrao Gund awarded punishment but proceedings against Bineet Kumar Singh (representing C.P.Ed. Vidyarthi Sangh) dropped.
       Held : Nothing is more incumbent upon the Courts of justice, than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, nor is there anything more pernicious when the order of the Court is forged and produced to gain undue advantage. Criminal Contempt has been defined in Section 2(c) to mean interference with the administration of justice in any manner. A false or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. When a person is found to have utilised an order of a Court which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication. On the aforesaid parameters, it would be necessary to examine whether it can be said that Mrs. Megha Rude can be held to be guilty of contempt. In view of our conclusion on the basis of materials available in the Inquiry Proceedings with regard to the role played by Mrs. Megha Rude, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Mrs. Megha Rude is guilty of gross criminal contempt and must be suitably punished for the same. (Para 6)
       So far as Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund is concerned, he was an employee in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. According to the evidence of Shri Palshikar, it is Dilip Wamanrao Gund, who engaged him in the writ petition, that had been filed in Nagpur High Court. From the affidavit of Shri S.V. Deshpande, it is further established that the interlocutory application filed in this Court, while filing the special leave petition was brought to him by Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund. Even Mr. Palshikar states that the draft affidavit was taken from him by Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund and Mrs. Megha Rude. The material documents were in the hand-writing of Mr. Dilip Wamanrao, which he admitted in course of his statement before the Inquiring Officer. The explanation of the contemnor Wamanrao Gund that he wrote it on the request of Shri Palshikar, has not been found to be believable by the Inquiring Officer and in our view, rightly. Shri Deshpande, the learned Advocate states that the special leave petition was filed in this Court on instructions of Mrs. Megha Rude and Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund. Contemnor Dilip Wamanrao in his statement, clearly admitted that he came all the way from Nagpur to Delhi and was present in this Court, at the time of hearing of the special leave petition on 28.8.98. He further stated that he obtained the Gate Pass to enter into the Court room, in which hearing was fixed. The evidence of Shri Deshpande corroborates the same. It is unimaginable that an employee of the High Court would not only take keen interest in filing of special leave petition but also would come all the way to Delhi and would remain present in the Court when the special leave petition was being heard. It is further established from the statement of Shri Deshpande as well the register maintained by Shri Deshpande, Advocate that the documents were received from his office by said Dilip Wamanrao Gund and Shri Dilip Wamanrao Gund in his statement, admitted the same. According to Shri Deshpande, the copy of the order dated 28.8.1998 was transmitted to Shri Palshikar, the advocate at Nagpur and Shri Palshikar also corroborates the said statement of Shri Deshpande. Shri Palshikar further states that he handed over the order of the Court which he had received from Mr. Deshpande to Dilip Wamanrao Gund, since it is Dilip Wamanrao who had been instructing him and who had engaged him in the matter. According to the statement of Shri Deshpande, Shri Dilip Wamanrao subsequently requested for three more certified copies of the order and pursuant to such request, copies of the orders had been obtained and dispatched to said Shri Dilip Wamanrao Gund on 15.9.1998. The Inquiring Officer has believed this statement of Shri Deshpande and we see no reason, why the statement should not be believed. While Shri Dilip Wamanrao Gund, initially has stated that he does not know Mrs. Megha Rude, but later on admitted that he came with Mrs. Megha Rude. The aforesaid facts unequivocally establish the fact that Shri Wamanrao Gund was present in the Court when special leave petition was dismissed and he being so much interested in the litigation, having come all the way from Nagpur and being present in the Court when the Court dismissed the special leave petition and it is he, who obtained the certified copy of the order from the Advocate Shri Palshikar, which order was later on found to have been forged, the conclusion is irresistible that said Shri Dilip Wamanrao Gund with connivance of Mrs. Megha Rude, got the order forged and tried to utilise the same, on the basis of forgery made to obtain favourable orders from the Government for holding an examination for the students of the institution, who were not otherwise eligible to appear at the examination. By user of a document, which he knew to be forged, said Shri Dilip Wamanrao Gund committed gross contempt of Court and as such is liable to be punished for the same. Mrs. Megha Rude and Shri Dilip Wamanrao Gund were fully aware of the original order, that had been passed by this Court in dismissing the Special Leave Petition and they used the forged order by which they tried to have another examination conducted by the State Government to enable the remaining students to appear at the examination. User of a fabricated order for the purpose of conferring some benefits on a group of students by way of compelling the State Government to hold an examination is by itself amounts to pollute the course of justice and must be held to be a grave act of contempt. We, therefore, hold both Mrs. Megha Rude and Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund to be guilty of contempt, having committed criminal contempt as well as under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and for such gross act on their part, they are sentenced to imprisonment for six months. The Contempt Proceeding against Bineet Kumar Singh is dropped. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)

ORDER

On account of a serious disquieting feature in relation to an order passed by this Court, this Court took suo motu cognizance and issued notice as to why the persons involved, should not be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Pursuant to the notice issued, show cause, being one of denial, it necessitated an inquiry and the inquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who on the basis of evidence lead before him, has submitted a Report. After getting the said Report, objections were filed on behalf of contemnors and they have been heard at length being represented by their respective counsel.

2. The State of Maharashtra, introduced a course in Physical Education called C.P. Ed. course. A person acquiring the said diploma would be eligible for being considered for the post of a Physical Instructor in the schools. In the recent past, there has been a mushroom growth of private institutions and the founders of such institutions make huge sum of money by admitting students from different parts of the country and by conferring degree or diploma on them. But every such institution requires permission of the concerned State Government as well as the affiliation to any university, failing which the so-called diploma/degree from the institution will be of no use. One such institution with which we are concerned in the present case is Lokmata Indira Gandhi College of Sports, Yavatmal. The institution use to run by Late Savitribai Sikshan Prasarak Mandal, Yavatmal (for short referred to as the K.S.S.P. Mandal ). The Government of Maharashtra did not grant permission to the institution for the academic year 1994-95 but the institution admitted several students and then persuaded the Government for grant of permission. At later stage, the government did grant the permission for the academic year 1994-95, so that the students who have already studied in the institution could appear in the examination. An examination was conducted in the year 1996 but many of the students could not appear in the said examination, allegedly because of lack of proper information. K.S.S.P. Mandal, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Nagpur High Court for a direction that the remaining students who have already studied for the academic session 1994-95, should be permitted to appear at the examination to be held by the appropriate authority. That application, however was withdrawn by the counsel appearing for the Mandal, as indicated in the order of the Court dated 21.3.1997. A fresh writ petition was filed in the Nagpur High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1005/97, entitled C.P.Ed. Vidhyarthi Sangh through Bineet Kumar Singh. That writ petition was also dismissed on 26.8.1997. An application for review was filed in the High Court, which was registered as Review Petition No. M.C.A. 225/97 and that application stood disposed of by order dated 23rd October, 1997. The said order stipulates that if the examination is held in future by the State of Maharashtra, then all such students who were the ex-students in the C.P.Ed. Course and who had missed their examination for any cause, would be allowed to appear in the examination and the relief would not be restricted only to those, who have approached the Court, but to the entire student community. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, as no examination was held, a fresh writ petition was filed in the year 1998, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1621/98. This writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court on 8th July, 1998. Against the said order of the High Court dated 8th July, 1998, a special leave petition was filed in this Court and that special leave petition was dismissed by order dated 28th of August, 1998. In view of the dismissal of the special leave petition, the so-called students of Mandal, would not get any chance of appearing at any future examination. But an order purported to have been passed on 28.8.1998, was sent to the Stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document