Honble K.C. Agrawal, C. J.—This appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been preferred by C.P. Singh posted as the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.4.1992 holding him to be guilty of contempt of this Courts order dated 10.03.1992.

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1500/81 T.C. Jain v. Rajasthan Housing Board was listed for hearing before Honble Mr. Justice N.C. Kochhar on 10.03.1992. On that date learned Judge passed the order for listing it along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1953/81. Both the writ petitions were listed on 23.03.1992 before Mr. Justice M.R. Calla, J. but they did not reach hence were not taken up. As per order dated 10.03.1992 both the writ petitions should have been listed together again on the next date but on 8.04.1992 W.P. No. 1500/81 was listed before Honble Mr. N.C. Sharma, J. whereas W.P. No. 1953/81 was listed before Honble Mr. V.K.. Singhal, J. Writ Petition No. 1953/81 listed before Honble Mr. V.K. Singhal, J. was heard and reserved on that date whereas W.P. No. 1500/81 could not be taken up. On the next date when W.P. No. 1500/81 was listed before Honble Mr. Sharma, J. he found that the order dated 10, March, 1992 had not complied with as W.P. No. 1953/81 was listed in isolation and was heard by Honble Mr. Singhal, J. on 8.04.1992.

3. Finding that C.P. Singh, Dy. Registrar was guilty of contempt Honble Mr. Sharma, J. issued a notice to him for explaining as to why action was not taken against him for non compliance of the Courts order dated 10.03.1992. C.P. Singh, Dy. Registrar, submitted his explanation pointing out that the work of listing cases had been assigned to the Asstt. Registrar and that he did not flout the Courts order. For the mistake alleged he, however, rendered unconditional apology. This apology was accepted and the following order was passed :

"While holding him guilty of contempt, I accept the unconditional apology, rendered by him, and on account of that I purge the contempt.

4. Even an apology tendered after commiting contempt does not justify its acceptance as observed by the Supreme Court in L.D. Jaikwal vs. State of U.P. (1) However, the question in this appeal is whether C.P. Singh, Dy. Registrar be held guilty of contempt? The contempt power is discretionary. By the order dated 10.03.1992 the learned Judge wanted that W.P. No. 1500/81 be listed alongwith W.P. No. 1953/81. That order was complied with and both the writ petitions were listed together before Honble Mr. M.R. Calla, J. on 23.03.1992 but they were not taken up. On the next date they should have been listed together but unfortunately it did not happen. For this act C.P. Singh has been held guilty of contempt by the learned Judge.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that when the order dated 10.03.1992 had been complied with by listing both the cases on 23.03.1992 and the work of listing under directions issued was with the Asstt. Registrar the appellant could not be punished for contempt. That submission is well founded.

6. As stated by Bowen, L.J. in Helmore v. Smith the reason to punish is to impair the confidence of the public in courts which is of prime importance to litigants in protection of the rights and liberties. The summary power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly in serious cases as held by the Privy Council in Parashuram Detaram v. Emperor, (2) Usefulness of this power depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised. It is a settled law that the jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is a real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice. For what we have stated above it is clear that the contempt jurisdiction has to be exercised with utmost restraint and circumspection, only when the gravity of the occasion demands it and always with reference to the interests of the administration o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document