Allahabad High Court
Harihar Prasad Srivastava vs D.P. Giri Addl.Commissioner ... on 13 October, 2015
Bench: Arun Tandon, Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 37 of 2015
Applicant :- Harihar Prasad Srivastava
Opposite Party :- D.P. Giri Addl.Commissioner (First) Allahabad And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Harihar Prasad Srivastava
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Harihar Prasad Srivastava who is an Advocate in person and perused the record.
This criminal contempt application has been filed under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.
In our opinion, this criminal contempt application is an abuse of the process of law by a person who is presumed to have knowledge of law being an Advocate.
From the record we find that there was a dispute between petitioner and respondent no. 2 Ajai Kumar Katiyar in respect of mutation of name over some immovable property. The proceedings in that regard have reached up to the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45294 of 2015. The Hon'ble Single Judge after hearing the matter has reserved the judgement. We find that no interim order has been granted in favour of the applicant in the said writ petition.
Sri Ajai Kumar Katiyar, the Tehsildar in terms of the order which is the subject matter of the said writ petition has proceeded to make necessary corrections in the relevant revenue records.
According to the applicant, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have committed criminal contempt of the court.
The Additional Commissioner has wrongly understood the ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which were cited by the applicant and therefore the said Additional Commissioner has committed contempt.
So far as the Tehsildar is concerned, it is stated that he has committed criminal contempt by making corrections in the revenue records despite being aware that against the order of respondent no. 1, a writ petition has been filed before this Court and that judgement has already been reserved.
In support of his contention of mala fides, the applicant has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sri Baradakanta Mishra Vs. Shri Bhimsen Dixit reported in AIR 1972 SC 2466.
'Criminal contempt' has been defined under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it reads as under:-
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
(d) "High Court" means the High Court for a State or a Union territory, and includes the court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory."
In the case of M/S. Jindal Industries Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Another reported in AIR 1991 SC 1832, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 587, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
"7. The mala fides are essentially questions of fact and they have not only to be alleged but have also to be supported by the relevant material."
We are of the considered opinion that the plea as to whether the said Additional Commissioner has wrongly understood the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court will not fall within the definition of the criminal contempt. Moreso when the issue in that regard is engaging the attention of the writ court in writ petition wherein no interim order has been granted. So far as the Tehsildar is concerned, we record that since there was no interim order in the writ petition, there was no restriction on the Tehsildar to comply with the order of Additional Commissioner which was subject matter of challenge in the said writ petition.
We may further notice that criminal contempt application can only be entertained by the Hon'ble High Court, if it is in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 (1) (a) and (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. In the facts of the case, we find that there is no consent of the Advocate General probably the applicant who is an Advocate is not even aware of the said statutory requirement.
Lastly, it is pointed out that an affidavit has been filed in the writ Court which is a false affidavit. In case the applicant is aggrieved and if he may so desire, file an application for the said purpose before the Hon'ble Single Judge where the judgment is reserved.
In our opinion, the applicant has tried to bring uncalled pressure upon the said Additional Commissioner and the Tehsildar by filing the instant criminal contempt application.
In our opinion, mutation proceedings do not finally determine the title over the disputed property. The mutation proceedings are summary proceedings. The order passed thereon is always subject to the orders of civil court/revenue court to be passed in a title suit.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant criminal contempt application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The said cost of Rs. 50,000/- be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court and be used for High Court Bar Association Library for the purchase of books.
Order Date :- 13.10.2015
Anand
