Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.C.PATEL, N.N.MATHUR
J.A.GORASWA - Appellant
Versus
D.I.G.AND I.G.POLICE,gujarat STATE - Respondent
MISC.CIV.APPLN. 1411 of 1991
Decided On : 08/02/1995
The Rules provide that every contempt petition shall -contain full name, description and place of residence of the petitioner -as well as of the persons charged. Thus, name of the respondent is -also required to be given with full description. The application is -also required to contain the alleged contempt, material facts necessary -for proper determination of the case etc. The petition is also required -to be signed by the petitioner or his authorised agent. Where a person -signs the petition in a capacity other than his individual capacity, -he is required to indicate the capacity in which he signs. The petition -is required to be supported by affidavit. The deponent shall state -which paragraph or portion of his affidavit he swears or solemnly -affirms to, from his own knowledge and what paragraphs or portions -he swears or solemnly affirms to, on his own belief, stating the grounds -for such belief.]
[Para 7]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sec. 23 and Contempt -of Court (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984-Rule 7 and Civil Procedure -Code-Order 19, Rule 3 and Supreme Court Rules-Order XI Rules -5 & 13-Affidavit-True to best of knowledge-Nature of source -not disclosed-Held, affidavit is not as per law-Affidavit -has to be in confirmity with Rule 7 of Gujarat Contempt of Court Rules -and Order XIX Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code.
In the aforesaid affidavit, it is only stated that Whatever -is stated in the affidavit is true to the knowledge of the deponent. -The deponent has not stated which of the paragraphs are true to his -own knowledge and which are the paragraphs or portions which he swears -or solemnly affirms to his own belief stating the grounds of such -beliefs. Order XIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that -affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able -of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, -on which statements of this belief may be admitted. Thus where the -allegations in an affidavit are stated to be correct to the best of -the knowledge, the nature of source of the knowledge is not disclosed, -the affidavit would not be as per law. The affidavit has to be in -conformity with Rule 7 of the Contempt of Court (Gujarat High Court) -Rules, 1984 and order XIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.
[Paras 9 & 10]
Contempt of Court (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984-Rule -7 and Civil Procedure Code-Order XIX Rule 3-Verification-Importance -and basis of-Possible to decide genuineness and authenticity of -allegations-Party must disclose as to which facts are true and -based on personal knowledge, information or belief in affidavit.
The importance of verification has to be judged by the -purpose for which it is required. It is only on the basis of verification, -it is possible to decide the genuineness and authenticity of the allegations -and the deponent can be held responsible for the allegations made -in the affidavit. The party stating facts must disclose as to what -facts are true to his personal knowledge, information or belief. If -the statement of facts is based on information the source of information -must be disclosed in the affidavit.
[Para 9]
Contempt of Court (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984-Rule -7 and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Contempt-No contempt proceedings -in absence of individual persons-State or Corporation can be made -party in addition to individuals.
In fact, a contempt proceeding cannot be proceeded with -in absence of an individual person being a party as contemner, who -is required to be charged of the alleged act of wilful disobedience -of the order or directions of the Court. It is made clear that we -do not say that at no stage, a State of Corporation cannot be a party -in a contempt application. In addition to the Individual, the presence -of the State or the Corporation etc. would be useful in identifying -the individual officer concerned who should be charged for the contempt.
[Para 12]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Contempt of Courts -(Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984-Rule7-Contempt-Nothing -to show that officers were responsible for not carrying out directions -of Court-Contempt petition must be precise & accurate-Held, -B not responsible for not carrying out directions of Court simply -because he filed affidavit on behalf of State.There is nothing to show how these officers were responsible -for carrying out the directions of this Court. Simply because Mr. -Bhandari has filed the affidavit on behalf of the State of Gujarat, -he cannot be said to be the person responsible for carrying out the -directions issued by this Court in the year 1989. Therefore, in a -contempt matter, there has to be a precise and accurate statement -specifying the name of the individual person who, at a particular -moment, held the office and was charged to carry out the directions -of the Court, and has wilfully not carried out the said directions. -No matter whether the officer has been transferred or retired, but -the proceedings can be initiated and proceeded against him under the -provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provided that the -matter has not become stale. If the order or direction is not complied -with and if such disobedience continues, subsequent incumbents can -be added as contemner-respondent.
[Para 13]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sec. 20 and Contempt -of Court (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984-Rule 7-Limitation-Contempt -petition to be filed within one year-Directions given by Court -on 27.10.1989-Contempt petition filed on 16.10.1991-Rule issued -on 3.3.1994-Held, initiation of proceedings is specially barred.
The proceedings are initiated by a Court on its own motion -or otherwise within a period of one year as provided under section -20 of the Act. In the present case, the directions of this Court given -in the judgment dated 27.10.1989, are alleged to have been not complied -with. The contempt application in this regard has been filed on 16.10.1991. -Limitation has not to be computed from the date of filing the petition, -but from the date of taking cognizance by the Court. In this case, -Rule was issued as late as on 3.3.1994. Thus, there is a specific -bar for initiating proceedings under section 20 of the Contempt of -Courts Act, 1971.
[Para 15]
Obiter Dicta-Legal profession is Solemn and serious -occupation-It is duty of Advocates to assits Courts by proper -presentation-No casual approach be made by filing incomplete and -inaccurate pleadings, non-payment of court fee, removing of objections, -failure to serve parties etc.-These acts & omissions amount not -only contempt of court but do positive disservice to litigants and -create embrassing situation in Court.
It is the duty of the advocates to assist the court by -proper presentation of their case. Even the Apex Court having come -across to several instances of casualness in the legal profession -was compelled to give caution. Some members of the profession have -been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession -as is evident from their absence when the matters are called out, -the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings-many times even -illegible and without personsl check and verification, the non-payment -of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, -the failure to take steps to serve the parties, etal. They do not -realise the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only -amount to the contempt of the court but do positive dis-service to -the litigants and create embrassing situation in the court leading -to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. -This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system.
( 1 ) THIS Miscellaneous Civil Application (for contempt) has been filed on 16-10-1991 by the petitioners, namely, (1) J. A. Goraswa and (2) R. B. Shukla against Director General and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State and state of Gujarat.
( 2 ) THE say of the petitioners is that they were serving as Head Constables in the police Force of the respondents and they had appeared for the written test and oral test for the purpose of promotion to the post of Police Sub-Inspectors. They had passed the written test but failed in the oral test. Therefore, they approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application which were decided by this Court (Coram : R. J. Shah, J.) by a common judgment dated 27-10-1989. This Court issued certain directions to the respondents to be carried out within a specified time. A copy of the judgment has been annexed with this Application and marked as Annexure a. It is further casually stated by the petitioners that "it seems against the aforesaid judgment, the respondents have filed Letters Patent Appeal. The applicants are not aware whether the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against them or not since they are not served with the notice of the appeal. " In the subsequent para, it is stated that one Letters patent Appeal being L. P. A. No. 358 of 1990 has been admitted and in the Civil application No. 1286 of 1990, certain directions have been given by the Division bench of this Court on 29-1-1991. A copy of the said order has been annexed and marked as Annexure b. The further say of the petitioners is that if the judgment in the main petition is implemented, they would stand promoted to the post of Sub- inspectors, and the respondents deliberately and wilfully have not implemented the judgment and as such they have committed contempt of Court. It is thus prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents or to direct the respondents to implement the directions issued in the aforesaid Special Civil Application.
( 3 ) FROM the above facts as stated in the petition, it is difficult for us to understand as to what is the controversy involved. In a casual manner, it has been stated that certain directions were given by the High Court and certain directions were given by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal. There is nothing to show under what circumstances the petitioners approached this Court, and what exactly were the directions given by the learned single Judge and thereafter by the Division Bench. Thus, it has become necessary for us to collect the material facts from the material available on record. After going through the reply filed by the respondents and the judgment of the learned single Judge, we have collected the facts which are thus - petitioner No. 1- J. A. Goraswa had filed Special Civil Application which was registered as S. C. A. No. 4009 of 1987, and petitioner No. 2, R. B. Shukla had filed Special Civil Application which was registered as S. C. A. No. 4913 of 1987. The say of the petitioners is that in the year1983, examinations were held for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors. Out of 600 candidates only 192 candidates passed the written test. Thereafter, oral test termed as practical test was held during the period from 1-2-1985 to 3-2-1985. The result of the practical test was declared on 11-3-1985. Out of the 192 candidates, 64 candidates were declared to have passed, and orders were issued directing the candidates to report for training at Junagadh on 18-3-1985. The petitioners challenged the result of 11-3-1985. Number of identical petitions were filed in this connection. All these petitions were heard together. It was contended that the provisions regarding practical test are arbitrary and irrational. Contentions were raised with regard to consideration of the service record as well. The petitioners also challenged the rules with respect to the practical test. T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
