JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Respondent No. 1 present in-person. On oral request on behalf of respondent No. 2, his presence is exempted till further orders.

2. On oral request by the petitioner, time granted to file further affidavit.

3. Certain instances, which have occurred inrelation to service of notice in the present proceedings upon the respondent No. 2, and brought to the notice of this Court, warrant the following order.

4. The Bailiffs reports in respect of attempt to serve the notice of the proceedings upon the respondent No. 2 disclose that on two occasions, the Bailiff had been to the office of the respondent No. 2, firstly, on 3rd June, 2002 and then on 14th June, 2002 to serve the notice upon respondent No. 1.

5. On both the occasions, he met Personal Assistant to the Commissioner of Police, the name of the Personal Assistant being Mr. Ramani. It was informed to the Baliff on both the occasions that the Commissioner of Police had gone to Mantralaya for meeting and there was no fix time known for his return to the office. On account of non-availability of the Police Commissioner, the notice was returned unserved.

6. Undoubtedly, in terms of Rule 19(c) of Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960, notices issued in contempt proceedings are to be served personally on the person to whom the notice is addressed to, unless otherwise directed by the Court. In the case in hand, there was no direction to serve the notice on any person other than to whom it was addressed to.

7. It is to be noted that the Bailiffs Report clearly reveal that he had been to the Office of the Police Commissioner and the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner had informed him about the non-availability of the Commissioner in the office, as he had gone to Mantralaya and further that it was not known as to when he would return to the office. Obviously, the Personal Assistant to the Police Commissioner would not have given such information to the Bailiff, without enquiring the purpose for which the presence of the Police Commissioner was required in the office and what sort of notice was required to be served upon him. It is unbelievable that Personal Assistant to the Police Commissioner would give information about the whereabouts of the Police Commissioner to any stranger without enquiring about the identity of the person making enquiry and the purpose for which he wants to meet the Commissioner. That apart, the person had gone to the Office of the Police Commissioner on two occasions and on both the occasions, the same person who is stated to be the Personal Assistant of the Police Commissioner had met the bailiff and had given the same information to the bailiff. Inspite of this, it is surprising that no enquiry was made from the Office of the Police Commissioner in the office of the Court about the nature of the notice, and also to approach the Court and to accept the notice. When a Government Officer and particularly, a Police Officer is made aware of the fact that certain proceedings are pending against him in the Court, and in that regard, the Court has issued him a notice and the Courts Officer had tried to serve the notice in relation to such proceedings upon him, and the Police Officer being not available in the office, the notice is required to be returned to the Court, it is certainly expected from such Police Officer either by himself or through his agent to approach the Court and to enquire and to accept such notice and not to wait till the Court issues fresh notice in relation to the proceedings pending in the Court. The Commissioner of the Police, who is the Head of the Department, as far as the city limits of Mumbai are concerned, who is expected to be kept informed about the happenings in and around the city, cannot be believed not to be made aware by his Personal Assistant about the bailiffs approach to his office for service of the notice from the Court. There was no attempt by the office of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document