AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. P. Chowdhri, H.S. Brar, JJ.
This matter has been placed before us on a reference from a learned Single Judge dated March 27, 1992.
Briefly stated, the material facts are that one Shri Gamdoor Singh Son of Narain Singh died on July 28, 1990, leaving behind his widow Smt. Bakshish Kaur petitioner No. 2 one son Amarjit Singh respondent No. 4 and a daughter Smt. Narinder Kaur petitioner No. 1. He also left, inter alia agricultural land at village Bhago, Tehsil and District Bhatinda and village Sheikhpura, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. Mutation No. 11347 was entered on May 21, 1990, by the Patwari. Amarjit Singh, son of the deceased, propounded a registered will dated September 1, 1987. The genuineness and the validity of the Will was contested by the widow and daughter of the deceased. A civil suit is pending between the parties in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Bathinda. The case of the petitioners i. e. the daughter and widow of Shri Gamdoor Singh is that Amarjit Singh, son of the deceased, persuaded Shri H. S. Hanspal, Member of Parliament, respondent No. 1, to write a letter Annexure P1 dated October 22, 1990, to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, with regard to the sanction of the mutation in favour of Amarjit Singh and this amounted to criminal contempt as defined in section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Further case of the petitioners is that A C. First Grade, who decided the contested mutation, was a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 10 of the Act and the respondents were liable to be proceeded against and punished for contempt of Court. Arrayed as respondents were Shri H. S. Hanspal, Member, Rajya Sabha, Shri D. S. Guru, Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, Shri Ajaib Singh Sra, A. C. Ist Grade, Rampura Phul, and Amarjit Singh, son of the deceased.,
The respondents have filed their replies in the form of affidavit They have denied having committed any contempt of court and in the alternative they have tendered unqualified apology.
The stand taken by Shri H. S. Hanspal respondent No. I is that the letter in question was not written to influence the decision of the authorities It was written only to avoid delay and to expedite the proceedings relation to sanctioning of mutation He further stated that the said proceedings were not judicial proceedings but were administrative in nature. Shri D. S. Guru, who was Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, at the relevant time, in his affidavit stated that the letter in question, a correct photostat copy of which was filed with his reply as Annexure A1, had been received and was duly entered in the General Receipt Register at serial No. 204 dated October 31, 1990 On the same day it was marked by him to District Revenue Officer in routine. In turn, the District Revenue Officer forwarded a copy of the letter to SDO (Civil) Bathinda as well as SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo, both subdivisions of district Bathinda, requesting for a report to be sent to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, vide his endorsement dated November 23, 1990. SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo forwarded the letter to the Kaungo Halqa for appropriate action and report. The Kanungo marked the same to Halqa Patwari. The Patwari in his report dated December 26, 1990, stated that the mutation having been contested was sent to SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo, on August 21, 1990 for necessary decision along with the said report, the papers were sent to, the office of SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo, who directed on January 14,1991, that the papers be placed on the record of the case. Accordingly, the original letter along with various endorsements and report was placed on the record of the mutation case on January 14, 1991.
The mutation proceedings were then pending before the SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo. The present petitioners made an application for transfer Shri. D. S. Guru respondent No. 2 by order dated June 4, 1991 transferred the proceedings from SDO (Civil), Talwandi Sabo. to SDO (Civil )Rampura Phul. The SDO (Civil) Rampura Phul sanctioned the mutation in favour of Amarjit Singh respondent No. 4. on the basis of the registered Will by order dated June 17, 1941. Appeal against the order was filed before the Collector on July 23, 1991. The appeal was dismissed in default. It was, however, ordered to be restored by Shri D. S. Guru respondent No. 2 by order dated October 15, 1991. We are informed that the appeal has since been dismissed.
Shri Ajaib Singh Sra, SDO (Civil) Rampura Phul, exercising the powers of A. C. Ist Grade, respondent No. 3 in his written statement high lighted that he had passed the order sanctioning the mutation according to law uninfluenced by the letter in question, which was at no stage addressed to him.
Amarjit Singh respondent No. 4 in his affidavit stated that Shri H. S. Hanspal respondent No I was a friend of his father Shri Gamdoor Singh. On learning about the death of Shri Gamdoor Singh, Shri Hanspal had come to condole his death and he offered to have the matter regarding mutation expedited. Amarjit Singh also tendered unqualified apology if by any action of his it was found that he had committed contempt of Court.
We have heard Shri H. S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri J. N. Kaushal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for respondents I and 4.
The contention of Shri Gill, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the writing of letter in question amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings and that A. C. Ist Grade, seized of the case, was court subordinate to the High Court. He placed reliance on Chhotta Singh and others v. Pritam Singh and others, AIR 1969 Pb. & Haryana 435, in which a Division Bench of this Court held that Financial Commissioner acting under section 39 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (13 of 1955) was a Court subordinate to the High Court. It was further contended by Shri Gill that the apology tendered in the written statements by respondents was not a genuine one and since as none of the respondents had, appeared in Court, nor had made any amends in so far as the legitimate rights of the widow and daughter of the deceased in the matter of property were concerned.
The contention of Shri J. N. Kaushal, learned counsel for respondents I and 4. on the other hand, is that mutation sanctioning officer, A.C. Ist Grade in this case, is not a court. The proceedings relating to sanctioning of mutation are not judicial proceedings for purposes of the contempt of Courts Act, that the letter had been written in routine and in the facts and circumstances of the case it was a letter bona fide written to have the proceedings expedited. Shri Kaushal explained that conditions prevailing in the State of Punjab at that time were far from satisfactory and Amarjit Singh, who was residing in Delhi, could not, therefore, afford to visit Bathinda in connection with the mutation proceedings endlessly. Shri Kaushal invited our attention to Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. The Sitamarhi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another, AIR 1967 SC 1494. In this authority after referring to the relevant case law, their Lordships extracted the following test to distinguish a Court''s quasi Judicial Tribunal :
"It is clear, therefore, that in order to constitute a court in the strict sense of the terms, an essential condition is that the Court should have apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial tribunal, power to give a decision or a definitive judgment which has finality and authoritativeness which are the essential tests of a judicial pronouncement."
The A. C. Ist Grade, according to Shri Kaushal was not functioning as a Court, nor were the mutation proceedings judicial proceedings and, therefore, the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act were not applicable. Shri Kaushal; also brought to our notice decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 2050 of 1990 arising out of SLP (C) No. 1770 of 1990, dated April 24, 19 0, in which it was observed that Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not a Court subordinate to the High Court in the sence the Contempt of Courts Act makes provision requiring the High Court to deal with contempt of Court of its subordinate Courts.
We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions
In our considered view, the letter in question was written in routine and the limited purpose was to have the proceedings expedited. In coming to this conclusion, we have impressed by the following factors.
The letter Annexure PI was entered in the General Receipt Register at serial No. 204 dated October 31, 1990 There was nothing surreptitious about the writing of the letter. The letter was marked by the Deputy Commissioner to the District Revenue Officer on the day it was received. The District Revenue Officer took his own time and more than three weeks later forwarded the copies to SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo and SDO (Civil) Bathinda for "appropriate action." This action was clearly warranted because of the instructions of the State Government Annexure A2. The concerned officer at that stage was SDO (Civil), Talwandi Sabo, and even though the record of the case had been sent to him on August 21, 1990, copy of the letter was nevertheless marked by SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo, to Tehsildar on 6121990 and by the Tehsildar to Circle Kaungo on December 10, 1990. This also goes to indicate that the papers were being marked down in routine and there was no one following the letter in order to influence the result of the proceedings one way or the other. The reminder Annexure P2 dated December 27, 1990, sent by the SDO (Civil), Talwandi Sabo, to Tehsildar, Talwandi Sabo, was also written in routine. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that the transliteration of the original letter appearing in Annexure P2 is not correct and, in fact, what was written in the original Punjabi was that the Deputy Commissioner was pressing hard and that reply may be sent. There was no reference to the Deputy Commissioner becoming angry for want of a reply and to that extent it is an inadvertent error in the copy Annexure P2 filed with the petition. This aspect has been clearly explained in the return filed by the Deputy Commissioner respondent No. 2. In other words, Annexure P 2 contains nothing personal which can possibly be attributed to the Deputy Commissioner telling the SDO (Civil), Talwandi Sabo, to pursue the matter with the officer concerned Secondly. it will be noticed that even though the matter had been pending with the SDO (Civil), Talwandi Sabo. since August 21, 1990, yet the reminder was being issued, to the Tehsildar on December 27, 1990. This is possible only if the persons concerned were not aware of the real factual position and were taking action by way of issuing a reminder in routine. It is not disputed that the proceedings were transferred from SDO (Civil), Talwandi Sabo, to SDO (Civil) Rampura Phul at the instance of the petitioners. It is significant to notice that in the transfer application Annexure A5 filed with the reply of Shri D. S. Guru, Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2, no grievance was made that Amarjit Singh had secured a letter from the Member of Parliament in order to influence the decision of the authorities in the matter of sanctioning of mutation. It may be stated at the risk of repetition that copy of the letter had been placed on record under orders dated January 14, 1991 of SDO (Civil), Talwandi Sabo. It is also very significant to note, that though one copy each of the letter in question had been forwarded by the District Revenue Officer on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner to the SDO (Civil), Talwandi Sabo and Bathinda, actually the matter was decided by a third SubDivisional Officer (Civil), namely, SDO (Civil) Rampura Phul. It is nobody''s case that any one spoke or had written to SDO (Civil) Rampura Paul before the matter was decided by him
In view of the foregoing facts, we are clearly of the opinion that the facts made out do not disclose criminal contempt as defined his section 2(c) of the Act. In the view that we have taken, it is not necessary to go into the related questions, namely :
"whether A. C. Ist Grade while dealing with proceeding for con. tested mutation acts as a Court; and
(b) whether the proceedings before him are judicial proceedings
Assuming for the sake of argument that the facts alleged by the petitioners satisfy the ingredients of subclause (i) of section 2(c) of the Act. No punishment can be awarded to the respondents merely on that score unless the case further satisfies the requirements of section 13 of the Act, which reads as under:
"13. Contempts Not Punishable in Certain Cases.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tend substantially to interfere with the due course of justice."
The facts and circumstances of the case in hand do not, in out view, warrant the conclusion that the alleged interference by writing letter Annexure PI amounted to substantial interference within the meaning of the above quoted section. For this reason also, there is no cause for proceeding further.
As pointed out in the earlier part of this judgment, the respondents have tendered unqualified apology. The same cannot be rejected on the ground that the respondents have not appeared in person. There is no order on the file directing the respondents to appear in person and it was, therefore, not necessary for the respondent to appear in person. We are equally clear that contempt, if any, could not be perjured by the alleged contemner making some concession in the matter of property left by late Shri Gamdoor Singh in favour of the petitioners. This is a matter which will be decided according to law in due course. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the contempt, if any, stands perjured because of the unqualified apology tendered by the respondents. The apology deserves to be accepted in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case. We order accordingly. In the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. Notice is discharged.