The appropriate forum for addressing allegations against a Judicial Officer is different from a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This civil contempt petition has been preferred by petitioner, Dr. Junul Bhengraj under Sections 2(b), 12, 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating a contempt proceeding and to prosecute a Judicial Officer.

2. The petitioner is an accused in different animal husbandry Scam cases, commonly known as 'Fodder Scam' cases. The main allegation of the petitioner is that he will not get justice from the O.P. No. 1, Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi as, according to him, the said Judge has committed contempt of Courts. After filing of the case, an objection was raised by the office of this Court pointing out defects. One of objections was made that a Judicial Officer cannot be impleaded as a party so his name should be deleted. There are other defects pointed out by the office.

3. All the defects having not been removed, the case was taken up by the Registry and was placed before the Lawazima Board of Joint Registrar (Judicial). The Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by order dated 19th July. 2005, having noticed the submissions, made by the counsel for the petitioner, and taking into consideration the ratio, laid down by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 18th February, 1999 passed in Civil Appeal No. 932 of 1999, opined that the civil contempt petition was not maintainable. Accordingly, as per Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001, he referred the matter before the Bench, presided by the Chief Justice of this Court.

4. On 17th September, 2005 when the case was taken up, adjournment was sought for on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner. When the case was taken up again on 19th September, 2005, counsel for the petitioner raised question of jurisdiction of the Court, particularly this Bench in hearing the matter and submitted that this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear the case. It was argued that the High Court from its administrative side has no jurisdiction to place the matter before the Division Bench; the matter should have been listed before the single Bench. It was further argued that the ease cannot be listed out of turn, which has been listed without mentioning. It was further submitted that the orders passed by this Court in different cases have been violated and the Chief Justice has no jurisdiction to constitute a Division Bench for hearing the civil contempt matters.

This Court has noticed the argument and submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. However, in spite of request, neither he chose to argue the case on merit nor argued on the question of maintainability of this petition, as was raised by the Registry of this Court. He requested to adjourn the case so that may be ready to argue the case on merit. On his request, the case was adjourned for 3rd October, 2005. On the said date, counsel for the petitioner again appeared and requested to adjourn the case to get himself prepared to argue the case on merit. When the case was taken up on 4th October, 2005, counsel for the petitioner again requested to adjourn the case for 18th October, 2005. Even on 18th October, 2005, counsel for the petitioner did not choose to appear, in spite of repeated calls.

5. This Court having noticed the submissions made by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction of this Bench, hold that the Chief Justice has jurisdiction to place the matter before any appropriate Bench, including Division Bench. When it was listed before the Division Bench, counsel for the petitioner neither sought time to remove the defects nor argued the case on the question of maintainability nor chose to argue the case on merit. It. appears that the petitioner including his counsel simply tried to drag the matter instead of arguing the case on merit.

6. This Court has gone through the pleadings made by the petitioner and the enclosures attached to the petition. It appears that the petitioner is not happy with one or other order passed by the learned Judicial Officer (O