Seeking extensions of interim orders does not constitute contempt of court; allegations against advocates and judges were found to be frivolous.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. We are confronted with a very unacquainted and disingenuous application seeking conviction of the respondents along with the advocates representing them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”).

2. The captioned Misc. Civil Application (consisting of 668 pages, including 111 pages of Memo) is filed by the applicant – Association under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The prayer clauses of the present application suggest that the applicant is praying for punishment for civil contempt of courts repeatedly committed between 02.09.2024 and 21.10.2024 of the judgment of three Judges Bench of this Court delivered in the case of District Development Officer vs. Maniben Virabhai (in Special Civil Application No. 642 of 1994 decided on 25.04.2000) and two Judges Bench in the case of Jakhariya Saleman Manek and Anr. vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Ors. (in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4 of 2023 decided on 04.10.2024).

BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE ALLEGED CONTEMPTOUS ACTION BY THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR ADVOCATES

3. The applicant in the present application has alleged and prayed for initiating the following contemptuous actions against the respondents and the learned advocates representing them.

4. The first contemptuous action, which is alleged to have occurred on 30.09.2024, pertains to the appearance of the learned senior advocates viz., learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi, who was joined and supported on his demand by other learned senior advocates viz. Mr.Mihir Thakore and Mr.Rashesh Sanjanwala, by alleging that only one learned senior counsel is permitted to appear in the matter per party and they have appeared on instructions of the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) i.e. learned advocate Mr.Keyur Gandhi in violation of the ratio of the judgment passed by three Judges Bench in the Case of Maniben Virabhai (supra)

5. The second contemptuous action, which is alleged to have happened on 01.10.2024, also relates to the learned senior counsels, who had urged the learned Single Judge to extend the interim order granting ad-interim relief on 08.08.2024, stating to be against the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. and Ors. (passed in Criminal Appeal No.3589 of 2023, decided on 29.02.2024).

6. The third contemptuous action, alleged to have happened on 03.10.2024, which is in the reference to the learned senior counsels seeking extension of the ad-interim order.

7. Similarly, the fourth contemptuous action alleged to have occurred on 01.10.2024, also relates to the learned senior counsels, who had mentioned that “if the Special Civil Application is decided, the CA will be taken care of”.

8. The fifth contemptuous action pertains to the consolidation of all the aforesaid contemptuous actions, state to have happened on the aforesaid dates, wherein the ad- interim order was extended at the request of the learned senior counsels, alleging as flagrant contumacious in defiance to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra).

9. The sixth contemptuous action, as alleged, has occurred on 21.10.2024, wherein it is alleged that the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent - Company requested the Court (before the learned Single Judge) for extending the stay without adjudicating the Civil Application (for Vacating Interim Relief) No.1 of 2024 contending it to be aggravated and flagrant contempt in violation of the aforesaid orders.

10. Thus, in nutshell, the case of the applicant is that the interim order dated 08.08.2024 passed in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11679 of 2024 was extended at the request made by the l