Sattar Khan vs Shri R.K. Bansal

Contemner-respondent is present in person.

This contempt petition has been filed by petitioner Sattar Khan raising grievance that Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur has despite the stay order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3424/2008 filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 proceeded against him for prosecution u/s 340 Cr.P.C. As per the facts of the present case, claim submitted by petitioner Sattar Khan was ultimately found to be bogus and on that basis, learned Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the petitioner directed recovery of the amount paid to the claimant under ''no fault liability''.

Perusal of the record shows that initially learned Single Judge of this Court on 25/8/2008 while issuing notices to the Insurance Company, stayed recovery from the petitioner. Subsequently, vide order dated 27/9/2008, this Court completely stayed operation of the award dated 22/7/2008. According to the petitioner, since the complete award was stayed, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner u/s 340 Cr.P.C. were also to be stayed. Therefore, respondent committed deliberate and willful contempt of the order of this Court.

Contemner respondent, who is present in person submits that notice u/s 340 Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner on 2/9/2008 and at that time, copy of the order dated 25/8/2008 passed by this Court was not produced before him either by the petitioner or his counsel. Moreover, stay order passed by this Court merely stayed the recovery and in this situation notice u/s 340 Cr.P.C. was issued. Respondent never intended to violate any order of this Court muchless he cannot think of making any such violation being a judicial officer. Even the certified copy of the order dated 25/8/2008 was in fact produced by the petitioner on 3/9/2008 and thereafter proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. were stayed. Respondent has submitted an unconditional apology stating therein that he has highest regard for the majesty of this Court and that even then if it is remotely found that any action on his part was not in conformity with the order of this Court, he tenders unconditional apology.

Having regard to the explanation submitted by the respondent-contemner, we are satisfied that there is no case for willful or deliberate contempt of the order passed by the Court. The petitioner has not been able to show whether prior to passing of the order dated 27/9/2008, proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. were stayed. In fact, such notice was much before the order dated 27/9/2008 was passed. And notice u/s 340 Cr.P.C. issued on 2/9/2008 because at that time, interim-order passed by this Court was only to the effect that recovery shall not be made from the appellant. Operation of the award as such was completely stayed much later on 27/9/2008.

This contempt petition is accordingly rejected. Notices of contempt are hereby discharged.