The court has the inherent power to punish for contempt of court, and this power includes the power to punish for ex facie contempt, which is contempt committed in the face of the court.

B.M. Lal, J.

Judgment rendered in this application shall also dispose of Civil Misc. Application No. 1095 of 1994-Dr. L. P. Misra v. State of U. P. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 292 of 1994, Anand Mohan v. State of U. P. and Habeas Corpus Petition No. 291 of 1994, A. K. Bajpai v. State of U. P. , as all these applications/petitions arise out of the judgment and order dated 15-7-1994 rendered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2058 (C) of 1994-State of U. P. v. Dr. L. P. Misra and four others, whereby the applicants and petitioners have been sentenced to imprisonment for one month and a tine of Rs, 1,000 each, an1 in default of payment of the tine to further imprisonment for 15 days.

2. ON the same day i. e. on 15-7-1994 the application No. 1096 of 1994 was moved on behalf of all the five contemners by the President of Avadh Bar Association, Sri Nagendra Mohan, with the prayer that order dated 15-7-1994 passed by this Court convicting the five contemners, be suspended and atleast six weeks' time be granted enabling the contemners to file special leave petition before the Apex Court inter alia on the ground that without giving any opportunity of being heard the order impugned dated 15-7-1994 has been passed by this Court is against all well settled norms.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1095/1994 was filed on behalf of Dr. L. P. Misra, advocate in his personal capacity for staying operation of the order dated 15-7-1994 passed by this Court and for granting him six weeks' time for preparing and filing special leave petition before the Apex Court. This application was presented by learned senior counsel of this Court Sri K. B. Sinha, who while taking resort to the provisions of Section 19 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 vehemently contended that punishment of Dr. L. P. Misra is to be suspended so that he may file appeal before the Apex Court.

3. TWO writ petitions, being No. 292 of 1994 and 291 of 1994, one on behalf of Sri Anand Mohan and the other on behalf of Sri A. K. Bajpaie have been filed on 17-7-1994, in the shape of Habeas Corpus Petitions but in the relief clause mandamus is sought directing the respondents to refrain from seeking the arrest and detention of petitioners of from taking any action to ensure compliance of the order dated 15-7-1994 passed by this Court. On 20-7-1994 a supplementary affidavit was filed by Sri Nagendra Mohan, President of Avadh Bar stating that there are two Anand Mohan, advocates and one Anand Mohan Srivastava. However, the same could not be substantiated by record.

4. BEFORE attempting to decide these applications and petitions, it seems desirable to narrate in brief how that tragic moment came on the fateful day of July 15, 1994 when this Court was constrained to take recourse to the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution in convicting and punishing the applicants.

In obedience to the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, myself and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Singh commenced to hold court at Lucknow with effect from 4-7- 1994.

5. ON 4-7-1994 itself it so happened that illegible photo-stat copies in the shape of petitions, annexures etc. etc. were presented before the Court. Since it was practically impossible to go through those photo- stat documents, one of us (Hon'ble A. P. Singh, J.) suggested respective learned counsel to file typed and legible documents and offered to grant time for the purpose.

6. HOWEVER, it was suggested to the Court that matters could be heard and appropriate orders could be passed instantly and as regards the question of filing typed copies, the same could be filed subsequently. The Court did not agree to the aforesaid suggestions of the bar and desired presentation of at least legible documents. Similarly, this Court also passed orders directing certain petitions to be transmitted to Allahabad main seat of this Court as those petitions arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the main seat