Gyanesh Kumar vs Ravindra Singh, Dios And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1265 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2107 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Gyanesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- Ravindra Singh, Dios And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.

Heard Sri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

The applicant, Gyanesh Kumar has alleged contempt by saying that the Assistant District Inspector of Schools/Authorized Controller (opposite party no.2) has disobeyed the order dated 29.09.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 1583 of 2010 (Gyanesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) when he has passed the order dated 10.3.2011, whereby he has directed one Assistant Teacher Sri Rajeshwar, who was selected by the Commission to take charge as officiating principal of the Institution. Learned counsel submits that the applicant had filed Writ Petition No. 52166 of 2010 (Gyanesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was dismissed by the judgement dated 27.8.2010. He states that the applicant filed Special Appeal No. 1583 of 2010 (Gyanesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein by an interim order dated 29.9.2010 status-quo was required to be maintained by the parties until further orders. According to learned counsel, the opposite party no.2 has clearly violated the interim order passed in the Special Appeal when the opposite party no.2 has directed to handover charge of officiating principal to Sri Rajeshwar, opposite party no.4 herein.

Having perused the record, it will be seen that a Contempt Petition No. 5362 of 2010 (Gyanesh Kumar Vs. Ravindra Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad) was filed by the applicant, wherein the contempt petition was dismissed by the order dated 22.11.2010 by clearly holding as quoted hereunder:-

"I have considered the submissions of the applicant and perused the record. From the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 08.11.2010 it appears that signature of one Rajeshwar as officiating Principal has already been attested vide its order dated 12.08.2010, before the date when the division bench of this Court has passed the order. In case, the signature of the applicant is not being attested as officiating Principal by the District Inspector of Schools, the remedy to the applicant is to make an application before the special appellate court or to any authority, but as it was only an order of status quo, therefore, in my opinion, in case the District Inspector of Schools is not attesting the signature of the applicant as submitted, it cannot be said that the opposite party is in violation of the order passed by this Court.

Therefore, this petition cannot be entertained and is hereby dismissed."

In the above referred contempt petition the applicant canvassed that his signature should have been attested by the District Inspector of Schools in view of the status-quo order dated 29.9.2010. It was rejected by the Court.

The record further indicates that the Committee of Management of the Institution had filed Writ Petition No. 16145 of 2011 (C/M Kailashwati Inter College Vs. State of U.P. and others) against an order dated 26.2.2011 directing to appoint the Authorized Controller for a period of six months wherein the writ petition was allowed on 17.3.2011 in the following terms:-

"Accordingly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.2.2011 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut who may pass a fresh order after hearing the parties within two weeks keeping in mind that the signature of respondent no. 4 was attested prior to the status quo order passed by this Court.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the Joint Director of Education on 25.3.2011 and till then position obtaining as on date may continue."

From the above referred both the orders, it appears that the Court in contempt proceedings as well as in the writ petition found that signature of Rajeshwar as officiating principal had already been attested before passing of the status-quo order in the Special Appeal. In the earlier contempt petition, it has been clearly recorded that the signature of Rajeshwar as officiating principal has already been attested on 12.8.2010 before the date when the Division Bench had passed the order.

In the order passed in the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management, it has been clearly ordered that the Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut is required to pass a fresh order but must keep in mind that the signature of respondent no.4 (Rajeshwar) was attested prior to the status-quo order passed by the Court. Admittedly no order has yet been passed by the Joint Director Education, Meerut after 17.3.2011.

In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by this Court in the first contempt proceedings and in the earlier writ petition, this Court in its contempt jurisdiction cannot accept the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no.2 while passing the order dated 10.3.2011 has disobeyed the directions issued in the Special Appeal primarily for the reason that earlier on two occasions a categorical finding of fact has been recorded by the Court that signature of Sri Rajeshwar was attested as officiating principal on 12.8.2010 whereas the order of the status-quo in the Special Appeal was passed on 29.9.2010. Under such circumstances, the status-quo as on 29.9.2010 was required to be maintain and on that date Sri Rajeshwar was authorized signatory as the officiating principal of the Institution.

The applicant has filed this contempt petition having full and complete knowledge that his attempt to get his signature attested as officiating principal have failed before the Court on two occasions. He exudes obstinacy in repeatedly invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court even then. Every action taken by the authorities has been projected to be a cause of action to bring a fresh proceeding in the Court even when his initial cause has been dealt with in the earlier petitions. He is aware that on 29.9.2010 he was not the authorized signatory. Therefore, under the status-quo order he cannot claim any right to change the status as it existed on 29.9.2010. But in an incorrigible effort he is repeatedly filing petitions which appear to be 'chance' petitions. That is not an act of seeking justice. It is more an attitude of abuse of the process of Court.

From the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the applicant has filed this contempt petition not with any bonafide motive but for the purpose of misusing the process of contempt proceeding. The order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the opposite party no.2 is in consonance with the finding recorded by this Court in the earlier contempt petition and in the writ petition of the Committee of Management. It is also a compliance of the status quo order dated 29.9.2010 passed in the Special Appeal. He had to maintain status quo hence when the signature of a person was attested earlier then that status had to be maintained even if the manager found his character to be doubtful.

Consequently, it appears that when this contempt petition is not bonafide and is a misuse of the process of the Court, the applicant himself requires to be deterred from indulging in frivolous litigation for the purpose of harassment of the opposite party. There are two options with the Court prima facie available today. The first is to issue notice of the contempt to the applicant himself for the aforesaid conduct. The second is to impose heavy cost may be to the extent of rupees three lacs which should be a deterrent for the applicant to prevent him from further attempting to misuse the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the second option would be more appropriate.

The Court assesses the cost to be imposed on the applicant as Rs. 30,000/- which should be deposited by him before the Registrar General of this Court within six week from today.

Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General of this court to take necessary action regarding recovery of cost amount from the applicant in case the same is not deposited within six weeks from today. The Registrar General of this Court is further directed to initiate the proceeding for recovery of the amount from the applicant/his properties assets wheresoever they be situated upon appropriate verification in case he fails to deposit the costs.

Upon deposit of the amount by the applicant within six weeks or recovery of the cost by the Registrar General of this Court, the amount be given to the Legal Services Committee of the High Court, Allahabad with a report of compliance to be placed on record of this petition.

This contempt petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Order Date :- 21.4.2011

Lbm/-