Back
2001 (2) JLJ 241
S.C. Pandey, J.
Sagir Khan and others v. Anil Awasthy and others
Contempt petition No. 218 of 1999, Decided on 23.11.2001.
It would be proper to record a finding that this Court applied its mind to the facts of the case before passing the order dated 16.8.1999. It was not a routine order of admission or issuance of notice within the meaning of category (ii) (a). It was also not an order covered by category (ii) (b). Therefore, the question is what did this Court do before recording the statement of counsel of relater, Shri Surendra Gangele. As is clear from the previous paragraphs that it took all the care to satisfy itself if prima facie case existed. Thereafter, it expressed itself by recording the statement of the counsel and confirming the facts from him. Thus, the order dated 16.8.1999 showed that the Court was initiating proceedings for contempt of Court on 16.8.1999. AIR 2000 SC 1136 and AIR 1974 SC 2255 discussed and referred to. [Para 21
(2) Legal Maxims -- stare decisis -- suggests fixedness which this principle does not have in action -- rigid insistence on repeating earlier decisions is a denial of doctrine of precedents.
The rules of law are the rules of degree. Cases of same degree occur only rarely. Even if they be identical, the times may have changed. The river may be same apparently but one does not step into the same river twice. A true devotion to the doctrine of precedents may require different results in apparently similar situations. A rigid insistence on repeating earlier decisions is in reality a denial of doctrine of precedents. [Para 10
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 141 -- Supreme Court -- being supreme body interpreting laws -- is required to declare manner of interpretation.
The Supreme Court is not the law-making body like Parliament. Under the theory of separation of powers, the bulk of this task is performed by the legislative wing of the State. The Supreme Court, in fact, is the final interpreter of law made by the legislature, whether, it is made by Parliament for Union of India, or its counterpart in the State, the State legislature. However, the Supreme Court being the Supreme body interpreting the laws made by the appropriate legislature, is required to say that the effect of a particular statute in question should be read in the manner indicated by it in its judgment.
This declaration of the law by the Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts. [Para 14
(4) Precedent -- duty of Court before which it is cited -- is to find out its general principle or holding before applying it.
The judges of the Supreme Court, while deciding a case, do not expressely declare the law in the sense a law-making body docs. They interpret a particular law while deciding a case and in this judicial process of delivering judgments, they apply a general principle which according to them should be applied to facts of the case. Whenever such a decision is cited as a precedent for an alleged general principle, it is the duty of the Court before whom it cited to find out the general principle or the holding before applying it as the law declared. [Para 14
(5) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- S. 20 -- High Court of MP. (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1980 -- R. 8(a) form No. 1 -- words "show cause why you should not be punished" appearing in category (iii) mentioned in AIR 2000 SC 1136 -- are merely illustrative and indicative.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1980 prescribes as per rule 8(a) of those rules that notices shall be issued in Fom1 No.1 appended to the rules. This form requires the contemnor to show cause why such action as is deemed fit should not be taken against you. The words "take action" appear to have been borrowed from section 15 of the Act. The Form No.1 of Karnataka High Court‘s Contempt of Proceedings Rules, 1981 employs identical language. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the firm opinion that the words employed in category (iii) discussed above are merely illustrative and indicative. They were employed for the purpose of distinguishing proceedings for contempt from other proceedings in the context of word "initiate" used in section 20 of the Act. AIR 2000 SC 1136 discussed. [Para 20
¼1½ U;k;ky; voeku vf/kfu;e] 1971&/kkjk 20&e-ç- mPp U;k;ky; ¼U;k;ky; voeku dk;Zokgh½ fu;e] 1980&fu-8 ¼d½ ç:i Ø-1&dkZokgh vkjaHk djus ds fy, vkns‘k esa&euksfuksx rFkk voeku dk;Zokgh dk vkjaHk fd;k tkuk minf‘kZr gksuk gksxk&fu-8¼d½ vFkok ^dkj.k crkvks* ‘‘kCnksa dk mYys[k ugha gksuk&dkZokgh vkjaHk ugha gksus dh dksfV esa ugha vkrkA ;g fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djuk mfpr gksxk fd vkns‘k fnukad 16-8-1999 ikfjr djus ls iwoZ bl U;k;ky; }kjk bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ij euksfu;ksx fd;k x;k FkkA og oxZ ¼ii½ ¼d½ ds vFkkZrxZr xzg.k dk vFkok uksfVl tkjh fd, tkus dk çkf;d vkns‘k ugha FkkA og oxZ ¼ii½ ¼[k½ ls vkPNkfnr vkns‘k Hkh ugha FkkA vr%] ç‘u ;g gS fd oDrk ds dkmUlsy Jh lqjsanz xaxsys dk dFku vfHkfyf[kr djus ls iwoZ bl U;k;ky; }kjk D;k fd;k x;k\ tSlk iwoZrj iSjkvksa ls Li"V gS] mlds }kjk viuk ;g lek/kku djus ds fy, iw.kZ lko/kkuh cjrh xbZ fd çFken`"V;k ekeyk FkkA rRi‘pkr~] dkmUlsy dk dFku vfHkfyf[kr dj rFkk mlls rF;ksa dh iqf"V djds U;k;ky; }kjk viuk lek/kku O;Dr fd;k x;kA bl çdkj] vkns‘k fnukad 16-8-1999 ls nf‘kZr gksrk gS fd 16-8-1999 dks U;k;ky; voeku dk;Zokgh vkjaHk dh tk jgh FkhA , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 1136 rFKk , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 2255 foosfpr rFkk fufnZ"VA ¿iSjk 21 ¼2½ fof/kd lw=&fu.khZrkuqlj.k&ls vVyrk bafxr gksrh gS tks O;ogkj esa bl fl)kar esa ugha gSa&iwoZrj fofu‘p;ksa dh iqujko`fÙk djus ds vuU; vkxzg ls iwoZ fu.kZ; ds fl)kar dk [kaMu gksrk gSA fof/k ds fu;e] dksfV ds fu;e gSaA ,d gh dksfV ds ekeys fojys gh gksrs gSaA og loZle gksa rc Hkh le; cny x;k gks ldrk gSA çdVr% unh ogh gksrh gS ijarq dksbZ Hkh nks ckj ,d gh unh esa iSj ugha j[krkA iwoZ fu.kZ; ds fl)kar ds çfr lPph fu"Bk esa] çdVr% leku ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fHkUu ifj.kke visf{kr gks ldrs gSaA iwoZrj fofu‘p;ksa dh iqujko`fÙk djus ds vuE; vkxzg ls okLro esa iwoZ fu.kZ; ds fl)kar dk [kaMu gksrk gSA ¿iSjk 10 ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq-141&mPpre U;k;ky;&fof/k dk fuoZpu djus okyk mPpre fudk; gksus ds dkj.k&fuoZpu dh jhfr ?kksf"kr djuk visf{kr gSA mPpre U;k;ky; laln~ dh rjg fof/k cukus okyk fudk; ugha gSaA ‘kfDr ds i`FkDdj.k ¼foHkktu½ ds fl)karksa ds v/khu] bl dk;Z dk vf/kdka‘k] jkT; ds fo/kk;h Lda/k }kjk fd;k tkrk gSA mPpre U;k;ky;] oLrqr%] fo/kku&eaMy }kjk cukbZ xbZ fof/k dk] pkgs og Hkkjr la?k ds fy, laln~ }kjk cukbZ xbZ gks vFkok jkT; esa mlds çfr:i] jkT; fo/kku&eaMy }kjk cukbZ xbZ gks] vafre O;k[;krk gSA rFkkfi] leqfpr fo/kku eaMy }kjk cukbZ xbZ fof/k dk fuoZpu djus okyk mPpre fudk; gksus ds dkj.k mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g dgk tkuk visf{kr gS fd ç‘uxr fof‘k"V dkuwu ds vk‘k; dk ikB] mlds fu.kZ; esa mlds crkbZ xbZ jhfr esa fd;k tkuk pkfg,A mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fof/k dh ;g ?kks"k.kk] lc U;k;ky;ksa ij ck/;dkjh gSA ¿iSjk 14 ¼4½ iwoZ fu.kZ;&ftl U;k;ky; ds le{k ds le{k çks)r fd;k tk,] mldk drZO;&mls ykxw djus ls iwoZ mldk lk/kkj.k fl)kar vFkok vfHkfu/kkZj.k irk yxkuk gSA ekeys dk fofu‘p; djrs le;] mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;k;k/kh‘kx.k] fof/k fojfpr okys fudk; ds vFkZ esa fof/k lqO;Dr% ?kksf"kr ugha djrsA og ekeys dk fofu‘p;u djrs le; fof‘k"V fof/k dk fuopZu djrs gSa rFkk fu.kZ; nsus dh bl U;kf;d çfØ;k esa og ,slk lk/kkj.k fl)kar ykxw djrs gSa tks muds vuqlkj ml ekeys ds rF;ksa esa ykxw fd;k tkuk pkfg,A tc fdlh vfHkdfFkr lk/kkj.k fl)kar ds fy, ,slk fu.kZ;] iwoZ fu.kZ; ds :i esa çks)r fd;k tkrk gS rc] ftl U;k;ky; ds le{k mls çks)r fd;k x;k gS] mldk drZO; gS fd mls ?kksf"kr fof/k ds :i esa ykxw djus ls iwoZ mldk lk/kkj.k fl)kar vFkok vfHkfu/kkZj.k dk irk yxk,A ¿iSjk 14 ¼5½ U;k;ky; voeku vf/kfu;e] 1971&/kkjk 20&e-ç- mPp U;k;ky; ¼U;k;ky; voeku dk;Zokgh½ fu;e] 1980&fu-8¼d½ ç:i Ø-1&, vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 1136 esa mfYyf[kr ¼iii½ esa vkus okys ‘‘kCn ^^dkj.k crkvks fd rqEgsa D;ksa nafMr ugha fd;k tk,**&dsoy n`"Vkar rFkk min‘kZu Lo:i ds gSaA e/; çns‘k mPp U;k;ky; ¼U;k;ky; voeku dk;Zokgh½ fu;e] 1980 esa mu fu;eksa ds fu;e 8¼d½ ds vuqlkj fofgr gS fd lwpuk,¡] fu;eksa ls mikc) ç:i Ø-1 esa tkjh dh tk,¡xhA bl ç:i esa voekudrkZ ls visf{kr gS fd og dkj.k crk, fd rqEgkjs fo#) D;ksa ,slh dk;ZokbZ ugha dh tk, tSlh mfpr le>h tk,A ‘‘kCn ^^dkjZokbZ djuk**] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 15 ds fy, x, çrhr gksrs gSaA dukZVd mPp U;k;ky; ds dk;Zokgh dh voekuuk fu;e] 1981 ds ç:i Ø-1 esa le:i Hkk"kk ç;qDr dh xbZ gSA iwoksZDr dh n`f"V ls] bl U;k;ky; dh n`<+ jk; gS fd Åij foosfpr oxZ ¼iii½ esa ç;qDr ‘‘kCn dsoy n`"Vkar rFkk min‘kZu Lo:i ds gSaA mUgsa] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20 esa ç;qDr ‘‘kCn ^^vkjaHk djus** ds lanHkZ esa voeku dk;Zokgh dks vU; dk;Zokgh ls çHksfnr djus ds ç;kstu ls ç;qDr fd;k x;k gSA , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 1136 foosfprA
1. A. preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the alleged contemners that this petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by time under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (henceforth 'the Act').
2. The petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1998 and obtained an interim order dated 25.5.1998 requiring the respondent in that petition not to take coercive action to remove them from gumtis occupied by them until further orders. It was alleged in this petition for contempt that despite the fact that the aforesaid order remained operative and the petitioners had not vacated, the respondents-contemners took law in their own hands with full knowledge of the order passed by the Court and took coercive action on 25.5.1999 to vacate the gumtis. It was further alleged that the respondent No.2, the Collector of Hoshangabad alongwith other contemners Anil Awasthy, the President of Municipal Council, ltarsi, Ashok Verma, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, ltarsi and Shahjad Khan, the Town Inspector Itarsi were quilty of contempt of this Court for the reason they ejected the petitioners forcibly and dispossessed them of the gumtis occupied by them by demolishing them. The contempt petition was listed on 18.7.1999. The order sheet of this Court dated 18.7.1999 indicates that it was ordered that contempt petition be listed alongwith Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1999, whereas it should have been ordered that the case be listed alongwith Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1998. The mistake was discovered on 9.8.1999 when this Court found that owing to inadvertence, a wrong petition was called from the office. The correct order for calling the original Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1998 was, therefore, passed. It was directed that the record of Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1999 is not required. Thereafter, the contempt petition was listed on 16.8.1999 alongwith Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1999. On that date the following order was passed by this Court.
"16.8.1999
Shri S.K. Gangele, counsel for the applicants.
1. He states that despite stay order was passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2078/98, which was already served upon the respondents. Nos. 1,2,3 and 4, they have removed coercively, the gumtis from the Itarsi Railway Station.
2. Issue notices to the respondents No.1, 2,3 and 4 returnable within 15 days, on payment of process fee by the applicants within three days from today.
3. The W.P. No. 2078/98 be del inked from this case and listed for further hearing in usual course, before the appropriate Bench.
3. Before passing the order, the original record of Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1998 was called to verify as a matter of fact, that the order passed on 25.5.1998 was still in operation on 25.5.1999, when the coercive action was alleged to have been taken. It was necessary to do so because a year had elapsed since 25.5.1998. Secondly, it was 'necessary to verify the good faith of the persons filing the petition by finding from the record if the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1998 had paid the process fee. It was found that not only the process fee was paid on 3.6.1998, but the office had issued the registered. notices on 8.6.1998, to all the respondents in the petition for their appearance on 2.8.1998. The acknowledgments signed on behalf of the Municipal Council, Itarsi through Chief Municipal Officer dated 11.6.1998 and to the President, Municipal Council, Itarsi, dated 15.6.1998 were on record. There was no acknowledgment indicating service of notice to the Collector, Hoshangabad, but there was no reason to hold that service was not effected on the Collector, Hoshangabad which is not far away from Itarsi. In any case, the service to Municipal Council, Itarsi and to President of Municipal Council. Itarsi, was enough to apprise the Municipal Authorities that the Writ Petition No. 2078/98 was pending against them. Thus, having carefully verified the aforesaid facts the order dated 16.8.1999 was passed.
4. It may be noted th
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
