AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narayan Roy, J.—Heard Mr. V.N. Sinha, learned GP 9 for the State and Mr. Chandrashekhar, learned senior counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, who are in attendance in the Court.
This matter has been assigned to me by virtue of the order of the Hon''ble the Chief Justice under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have been charged for committing contempt of this Court''s order, as they absented themselves for few minutes from the Courtroom on 16.4.2002. It appears from the materials on record that while hearing C.W.J.C. No. 4414 of 2002 a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12.4.2002 directed the Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation and the Section Officer to appear in the Court in person on 16.4.2002 with the original records pertaining to the case of the writ Petitioner. On 16.4.2002 the contemners did appear in Court and thereafter they also appeared on the subsequent dates fixed for hearing and on 23.4.2002 again they appeared in the Court and amidst hearing of the case they are alleged to have left the Court-room without permission of the Court. The learned single Judge finding the contemners absent from the Court-room drew up the contempt proceeding on 23.4.2002 itself and notices were issued upon them and consequently thereof the contemners filed their respective show-causes and the learned single Judge of this Court after considering the same filed on their behalf and also after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties requested the Hon''ble the Chief Justice to place this matter for trial before another Bench and as per the minutes of the Hon''ble the Chief Justice, this matter came to this Bench.
Mr. V.N. Sinha, learned Government Pleader No. 9, submitted that on 23.4.2002 though the contemners appeared in person, they left the Court for few minutes without permission of the Court and that amounted to contempt of this Court''s order.
Mr. Chandrashekhar, learned Counsel for the contemner opposite parties'' with reference to the show-cause and the other affidavits filed on behalf of the contemners submitted that the Petitioners have all respects for the orders of this Court and as per the direction of this Court, they appeared on 16.4.2002 and on the subsequent dates fixed for hearing and on 23.4.2002 they appeared in the Court, but since the argument was completed by him, he left the Court and the contemners also followed him for few minutes. Learned Counsel further submits that on 23.4.2002 several analogous cases were on the list and the same were being heard and after conclusion of the argument naturally he left the Court and the contemners followed him under assumption that their presence was not required in the Court. Learned Counsel further submits that no sooner the learned single Judge made inquiries about the contemners, they themselves appeared in the Court, which would be evident from order dated 23.4.2002 passed in this contempt proceeding itself. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the contemners have all respects to maintain the majesty of this Court and that they had no intention to commit any wilful disobedience of this Court''s direction, as they subsequently appeared on the same day in the Courtroom.
In the show-cause the contemner opposite parties have stated that on the fateful day, they had left the Court without permission of the Court and the same was most unintentional and on account of lack of familiarity with the Court''s proceedings. At the same time, they have tendered unqualified apology for the inconveniences caused to this Court and have prayed for their discharge.
From the facts enumerated above, it appears that the direction of this Court was obeyed by the contemner opposite parties and they did appear in this Court on 16.4.2002 and also on subsequent dates. However, on 23.4.2002 they absented from the Court-room for few minutes and after realising their mistakes they again appeared in the Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statements made in the affidavits filed on behalf of the contemner opposite parties, in my opinion, it does not appear to be a case of wilful disobedience of the direction of this Court. The act committed by the contemner opposite parties, therefore, must be held to be most unintentional and this lapse might have occurred due to unavoidable circumstances or ignorance of the proceedings of the Court. The unqualified apology tendered by the contemner opposite parties therefore, is accepted. However, they are warned to be careful in future in obeying the direction of this Court.
The Rule issued against the contemner opposite parties in the contempt proceeding, thus, is discharged and this proceeding is hereby dropped.