IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.A. Mohta A.P. Shah, JJ.
Arts and Commerce College, Pen..... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others..... Respondents.
Contempt Petition No. 140 of 1992, decided on 7-9-1993.
Advocates appeared :
Anil Y. Sakhare, for the petitioner.
V.S. Gokhale, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 5.
S. Radhakrishnan with R.A. Rodrigues, for respondent No. 2.
K.P. Jain, for respondent Nos. 3 4.
Apology tendered unconditional but not bona fide-Held, unconstitutional apology not act of penitance or good grace but as a tactful move when in tight corner to ward off court-Imprisonment in civil prison (confinement in court room) till rising of Court and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo actual imprisonment for seven days awarded to contemner.
2. In a Writ Petition No. 3123 of 1991 filed by the said College, a Division Bench of this Court as far back as on 21-8-1991 directed the State Government to pass appropriate orders under Section 43(4) of the Maharashtra Act of No. 22 of 1974 not later than 30th November, 1991. Time limit expired, months rolled by but no order was passed and hence reminders dated 9-9-1991, 9-10-1991 27-2-1992 were issued, the last communciation being a legal notice. All this evoked no response.
3. This contempt petition for disobedience of the order of High Court was filed on 8th July, 1992. The learned Asst. Govt. Pleader took time, even during pending of the petition no action was taken and hence rule was issued on 10th August, 1992. The matter was adjourned from time to time for nearly one year and the only indulgence shown to the Court was filing of an affidavit dated 9th July, 1993 by Shri S.R. Joshi, Under Secretary to Government, Higher Education, Technical Education and Employment Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Bombay, justifying the inaction on the ground that there was a mistake in the date of communication from the Bombay University upon which the order was to be passed. No indication whatsoever about future course of action was indicated in the affidavit.
4. The Bombay University filed an affidavit on 26th August, 1993 saying that the communication was forwarded on 20th February, 1991 and not on 6th June, 1991 as wrongly mentioned in the order of the High Court. On 27th August, 1993 the matter came up for hearing, no indication about compliance with the order was available even then and hence Shri Joshi was ordered to remain present personally in the Court on 3rd September, 1993. On 3rd September, 1993 he was present and was added as a respondent. At his request the matter was adjourned to this day. Shri Joshi has today filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology and saying that the order has been passed on 2nd September, 1993. The gist of his explanation for this long delay is this :
From 21st August, 1991 to 23rd September, 1992 one Shri Sharad Parab, and from 29th September, 1992 to 10th February, 1992, one Shri D.H. Tamore were the concerned officers and it was incumbent upon them to comply with the said order. On promotion he, i.e., Shri Joshi was transferred as Under Secretary to Government, Higher Education, Technical Education and Employment Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. But till 11th June, 1993 "he was not aware that the Government has committed contempt of order dated 21-8-1991 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3123 of 1991." On 11th June, 1993 he received a telephonic call from the Office of the Asst. Government Pleader, Bombay asking him to see him on 14th June, 1993 in connection with the present contempt petition. Accordingly, he contacted the Asst. Government Pleader on 14th June, 1993 and got himself acquainted with the facts of the case. From the record he could not trace any communication dated 6th June, 1991 and hence he filed an affidavit on 9th July, 1993. However, it was subsequently revealed that the date 6-6-1991 was wrongly mentioned and the correct date was 20th February, 1991. Then he was busy, there was assembly sessions and for want of time he was unable to give attention to the matter. After the assembly sessions ended, he passed an order on 2nd September, 1993.
5. During the course of the hearing, on our questioning, Shri Gokhale, learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing for Shri Joshi informed us after taking instructions from him that Shri Joshi had discovered the mistake in the date of University communication on 3rd July, 1993, assembly sessions commenced on 4th July, 1993, sessions ended on 31st July, 1993 and he studied the file in 1st week of August, 1993.
6. Now, the disobedience of the order of the High Court and commission
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.