KAN SINGH, J.—This is a motion for contempt of Court. The petitioner had filed a writ petition which was No. 557 of 1973 in this Court challenging certain schemes under sec. 6-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He also moved a stay application along with the writ petition. The stay application was heard on 16.4.73 by a Single Bench of this Court presided over by Jain, J. passed a detailed order granting stay in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned schemes as also staying the hearing of certain objections by the Deputy Legal Remembrancer. Jain J further ordered that having regard to the urgency of the case the case along with connected writ petitions be listed for hearing on 9-7-73. Thereafter the respondents in the writ petition moved for reconsideration of the stay matter, but their prayer was rejected by Jain J. on 8-5-73. On 4.7.73, an application was moved before Honble the Chief Justice for and on behalf of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation for ordering that the writ petitions aforesaid be placed before a Division Bench for hearing. The application was signed on behalf of the Corporation by opposite party Shri Raghuvir Singh and Shri R. N. Munshi, Additional Advocate General and counsel for the State Road Transport Corporation. We may read the grounds on which the matter was requested to be placed before a Division Bench:

"From a bare perusal of the order passed by Honble Mr. Justice Jain quoted above, it is clear that he has virtually decided the matter and has held that the schemes published under sec. 68-C of the Act in pursuance |of the Corporation Resolution dated 27- -69 cannot be said so be the schemes framed by the Corporation. Though the learned Judge, while making the aforesaid observation has said that he is prima facie of that view yet it is clear from the order passed by him that in his view since the draft scheme prepared by the Corporation in pursuance of its Resolution dated 27-5 69 was not placed before the Corporation so the schemes prepared in pursuance of that resolution could not be said to be the scheme of the Corporation In face of such a finding, it is difficult to conceive that when these matters are to be heard finally he will give any other decision in the matter.

That the Corporation further Submits that when such a large number of Writ Petitions are involved it is eminently desirable that these matters should be heard by a Division Bench of this Honble Court so that the dispute involved in these matters may be resolved without any further delay.

That beside this the Corporation further submits that questions raised in these Writ Petitions are of urgent nature and it will be in the public interest that question involved in these petitions are decided finally by a Division Bench of this Honble Court."

On 5-7-73, another application was moved before Jain J. by and on behalf of the State Road Transport Corporation that as they had moved Honble the Chief Justice for referring the cases to a larger Bench the cases be not heard by him. Jain, J. accordingly adjourned the hearing of the cases. On 20.7.73, the petitioner moved the present application for taking contempt proceedings against the opposite parties.

2. On 3-8-73, the matter came up before Honble the Chief Justice who ordered that a Division Bench consisting of us be constituted for hearing the writ petitions. He further ordered that a notice be issued to the opposite parties to show cause why they be not punished for contempt.

3. The contempt is alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties when they alleged in the application dated 4.7.73 that Jain J. had already formed his opinion in the matter and it was difficult to conceive that when these matters would be heard finally by him, he would be giving any other decision in the matter than what he had held in deciding the stay application.

4. The law on the subject of contempt of court is founded entirely on public policy. It i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document