Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
P.D.DESAI
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION - Appellant
Versus
NANAK CHAND, JUNIOR ENGINEER, TELECOM OFFICE, THEOG - Respondent
CMP (M) No. 96 of 1988
Decided On : 08/19/1988
CONTEMPT OF COURT - JURISDICTION - SUBORDINATE COURT - POWER TO PUNISH - PROCEDURE - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, SECTION 10 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, SECTION 228 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, ORDER 39 RULE 2-A - JUDICIAL RESTRAINT - CIRCUMSPECTION - JUDICIAL OBJECTIVITY - DETACHMENT - EQUANIMITY - TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT - PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE - CONSUMER SATISFACTION - DISPUTE RESOLUTION - AMICABLE SETTLEMENT - EXCESS BILLING COMPLAINTS - PROCEDURE - PUBLICITY - TELEPHONE DIRECTORY - ADDENDUM - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - CLARIFICATION ON MERITS OF DISPUTE.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (lower court) and a Junior Engineer (J.E.) of the Telephone Exchange over the non-payment of trunk call bills and the consequential disconnection of the office telephone. The lower court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the J.E., issued a contempt notice, and later accepted an unconditional apology tendered by the J.E. The Telecom District Engineer brought the matter to the High Court's attention, alleging harassment of the J.E. by the lower court.
Finding of the Court:
1. The lower court lacked jurisdiction, power, and authority to punish for contempt of itself. 2. The proper procedure for a subordinate court in such cases is to make a reference to the High Court. 3. The lower court erred in not following the proper procedure and in purporting to accept the J.E.'s apology without a finding of contempt. 4. The initiation of contempt proceedings against the J.E. was unwarranted as the dispute should have been dealt with administratively or through a properly constituted judicial proceeding. 5. The manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the lower court lacked judicial objectivity, detachment, and equanimity. 6. The telephone authorities should have resolved the billing dispute amicably with the High Court Registry instead of disconnecting the telephone.
Issues: 1. Whether a subordinate court has jurisdiction to punish for contempt of itself. 2. Whether the lower court followed the proper procedure in dealing with the alleged contempt. 3. Whether the initiation of contempt proceedings against the J.E. was justified. 4. Whether the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the lower court was appropriate. 5. Whether the telephone authorities acted reasonably in disconnecting the telephone.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a subordinate court lacks jurisdiction, power, and authority to punish for contempt of itself. 2. The proper procedure for a subordinate court in such cases is to make a reference to the High Court. 3. The acceptance of an apology in contempt jurisdiction requires a finding of contempt, which was absent in this case. 4. The dispute between the lower court and the J.E. should have been dealt with administratively or through a properly constituted judicial proceeding. 5. The manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the lower court lacked judicial objectivity, detachment, and equanimity. 6. The telephone authorities should have resolved the billing dispute amicably with the High Court Registry instead of disconnecting the telephone.
Final Decision: 1. The entire contempt proceeding initiated by the lower court was quashed and set aside. 2. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute relating to the telephone bills and the validity of the decision to disconnect the telephone.
P. D. Desai, C. J.—These suo motu proceedings have been initiated in view of an order dated September 26, 1987 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog (hereinafter referred to as "the lower court"), in the course of a proceeding initiated by him suo motu in the purported exercise of contempt jurisdiction against the Junior Engineer, Telephone Exchange, Theog (hereinafter referred to as "the J. E."). The origin of the proceedings culminating into the said order is to be found in an unfortunate controversy which developed between the lower court and the J. E. in connection with the alleged non-payment of certain trunk call bills and the consequential disconnection of the office telephone of the lower court.
2. It appears that the following three bills were issued by the telephone authorities for the recovery of charges of trunk calls allegedly booked from the telephone installed in the office of the lower court:
1. Bill dated 21-1-1987 for Rs. 174.
2. Bill dated 21-3-1987 for Rs. 157.
3. Bill dated 21-5-1987 for Rs.
147. It further appears that the correctness of the bills was disputed by the lower court in the course of a prolonged correspondence exchanged between the lower court and the telephone authotities. Since the payment due under the disputed bills was not made, the telephone appears to have been disconnected on September, 20/22, 1937,
3. On September 21, 1987, the Naib-Nazir of the lower court submitted a report stating, inter alia, that the office telephone was disconnected on September 20, 1987 on account of the non-payment of the aforesaid bills, although the detailed particulars with respect to those bills were received only on September 17, 1987 and although the disconnection could not have been effected before the expiry of 15 days from the date of the receipt of such information.
4. The lower court appears to have taken cognizance of the report on the judicial side and the following order was passed thereunder on September 22, 1987: "Report put-up today by the N. N. of this Court. Steps be taken to connect the Telephone.”
5. On the next day, that is, September 23, 1987, the lower court passed an order in the following terms : "As per the statement of the Naib-Nazir, the telephone authorities, Theog, would not connect the telephone until and unless the pending bills are paid. As per our record the pending bills have been received in this office on 17-9-1987 and that also on the initiation of this office only. The telephone cannot be disconnected within 15 days from the receipt of the bills as per rules. Issue of contempt notice to the J. E. Telephone, Theog, as to why actioh should not be taken against him and the Divisional Engineer Telephones for disconnecting the telephone of this office without any notice."
6. Pursuant to the aforsaid order, notice was issued to the J. E. which reads as follows : "In the Court of Shri S. L. Sharma, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog (Simla). Contempt Notice, To Shri Nanak Chand, Junior Engineer, Telephone3 Theog. Whereas you have disconnected the telephone of this Court without notice and it is therefore desirable that action should be taken against you and the Divisional Engineer, Telephone, Simla. You are, therefore, directed to appear in this Court today at 4.30 p. m. sharp and file your reply as to why you have disconnected the telephone of this Court without notice. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 24th day of September, l987. Sd/- S. L. Sharma, Sub-Division al Judicial Magistrate Theog, Simla” Seal:— In the order-sheet, the following entry was made on September 24, 1987: "Contempt notice to J. E Telephone Theog issued. It be registered. The J. E be served for today itself for
4. 30 p. m."
7. It appears that the notice was attempted to be served on the J. E, through the Naib-Court on the same day He submitted a report to the lower court to the effect that the J. G. bad gone out but an employee of the Theog Telephone Exchange (Surjeet
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
