HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 64007 of 2015 Petitioner :- Dr. Vijay Prakash Upadhayay Respondent :- The Advocate General U.P. High Court Judicature At Alld. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner before this Court seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Advocate General, State of U.P. to consider the application made by the petitioner under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act for permission to initiate contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate, Mathura in his capacity as Aauthorized Controller, Kishori Raman Post Graduate College Mathura. According to the petitioner-applicant the District Magistrate has obtained a fresh order from the Vice Chancellor of the University based on the earlier order which was the reason for the order dated 15.01.2015 consigning the Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4372 of 2014 filed for non compliance of the order dated 26.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 36299 of 2009 to record. This order dated 15.01.2015 has been recalled on correct facts being brought to notice of the Contempt Court vide order dated 31.07.2015. He has committed forgery. The order from Vice Chancellor has been obtained without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The sheet anchor for permission to initiate contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate by the present petitioner before the Advocate General, State of U.P. is the order dated 31.07.2015 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4372 of 2014 (Dr. Vijay Prakash Upadhyaya Vs. Smt. B. Chandrakala, D.M.). The order has been enclosed at page 38-39 of the paper book.
On reading of aforesaid order, we find that Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4372 of 2014 was filed by the present petitioner on the ground that the order of the writ Court dated 26.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 36299 of 2009 has been disobeyed. This contempt application no. 4372 of 2014 was consigned to record under order dated 15.01.2015 after recording that the order dated 26.02.2014 has been complied with.
The petitioner-applicant filed a recall application on the plea that the compliance affidavit filed by the District Magistrate was based on forged documents. Therefore, the order dated 15.01.2015 consigning the contempt application to record was liable to be recalled.
The contempt Court after examining the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and the case pleaded on behalf of opposite party-contemnor thought it fit and proper to recall the order dated 15.01.2015 whereby the contempt proceedings were consigned to record meaning thereby that the Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4372 of 2014 stood restored to its original number. The order is dated 31.07.2015.
What logically follows is that the contempt Court is still to examine as to whether the order of the Writ Court dated 26.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 36299 of 2009 has been complied with in letter and spirit or not. The issue in that regard is still at large to be decided in the said contempt application.
The petitioner, however, in order to bring undue pressure upon the District Magistrate, who is the Authorized Controller of the degree college has filed an application before the Advocate General for permission to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate. The application, which has been made before the Advocate General is enclosed at Page 17 & 18 of the paper book. It is completely silent about the subsequent order, which has been passed by the Vice Chancellor, nor a copy of the same is enclosed.
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, however, contended before us that on the basis of same order of the District Magistrate, which according to the petitioner was a forged order referred to in the order of contempt Court dated 31.07.2015, the present District Magistrate in his capacity as Authorized Controller has obtained approval in the matter of dismissal of the petitioner from services from the Vice Chancellor of the University. Therefore, criminal contempt proceedings are liable to be initiated.
We are of the considered opinion that this petition is an abuse of the process of law. The issue of compliance/non compliance of the order of Writ Court dated 26.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 36299 of 2009 is still to be examined in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4372 of 2014 filed by the petitioner-applicant himself. Reference to the contentions of the petitioner-applicant in the order of the contempt Court dated 15.01.2015 qua the order of District Magistrate having not been signed by him will not mean that the Court has recorded a conclusive finding in that regard in favour of the petitioner. In fact the contempt Court has recorded no finding in respect of the order of the District Magistrate either way and the issue is still alive in contempt application no. 4372 of 2014.
In our opinion, the question as to whether the order, which has now been passed by the Vice Chancellor with reference to the earlier order of the District Magistrate is in conformity with the order of the writ Court dated 26.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 36299 of 2009 or not and is bad for any other reason whatsoever is still to be adjudicated upon.
The remedy lies either by filing a fresh writ petition challenging the order of the Vice Chancellor or by filing an application in the pending Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4372 of 2014.
No application for permission to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act before the Advocate General in the facts of the case is legally maintainable in our opinion.
For all the reasons referred above, we dismiss the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-, which will be deposited by the petitioner before his contempt application no. 4372 of 2014 is heard by the contempt Court.
Order Date :- 1.12.2015 Sandeep