Deepak Khosla vs Delhi High Court & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 240 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Reserve: 30th November, 2010
                                                  Date of Order: 17th January, 2011

+CONT. CAS(C) 190 OF 2010
%

                                                                            17.01.2011

DEEPAK KHOSLA                                                              ... Petitioner
                         Through: Petitioner in person

                Versus

DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS.                              ... Respondents
               Through: Mr Rajiv Bansal with Mr. Amandeep, Advocates
               for R-1 and R-2


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?     Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                    Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                            Yes.

JUDGMENT

1. This Contempt Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner against

seven Respondents out of which Respondent No. 1 is Delhi High Court and

Respondent No. 2 is Registrar of Delhi High Court. Other three Respondents

are Advocates and two are private persons. In the Contempt Petition, the

Petitioner has alleged that Registry of this Court had not followed the

instructions given by a Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment "Deepak

Khosla & Anr. Vs. Union of India" dated 8th October, 2009 in WP (C) 7651

of 2009. He submitted that this Court vide aforesaid judgment treated the

Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation and issued directions in Para No.

12 & 13 of the judgment in respect of Vakalatnamas being filed in the Courts,

more specifically when the Vakalatnama was executed not by the principal

himself but by some person claiming to obtain or given authority on his behalf

to another person.

2. The allegations made are that the directions of this Court, given in

aforesaid Writ Petition and consequent circular were not followed by the

Registry since it listed an O.M.P. No. 660 of 2009 dated 10th November, 2009

before this Court without complying with the directions given by the Division

Bench in the aforesaid Writ Petition in respect of Vakalatnama. The petitioner

has made Advocates as Contemnors on the ground that they were aware of

the order of the High Court, but, still filed Vakalatnamas contrary to the

directions of the High Court. Private persons have been made Contemnors

on similar basis. The Petitioner also claimed cost of ` 66,000/- to be

reimbursed to him by the Contemnors.

3. Section 2 Sub Sections „(b)‟ & „(c)‟ define Civil and Criminal Contempt

as under:

"(b) "Civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful 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-

(d) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, 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."

It is obvious from the Petition that the Petitioner has alleged

disobedience of the Judgment of the High Court by Registry and filed this Civil

Contempt on this basis. However, a perusal of the Judgment, of which

disobedience is alleged, would show that in this Judgment Respondent no. 3

to 7 were not parties and only Union of India, Delhi High Court, Registrar of

High Court and Arbitration Tribunal were parties. The directions, given by this

Court in the Judgment, were given to the Registry of this Court, the

Subordinate Courts to the High Court and Tribunals. It was directed that the

Registry and the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals shall do proper scrutiny of

Vakalatnamas filed along with Petitions and if the Vakalatnamas were not

properly executed, the same be not taken on record. Para 13 of the

Judgment specifically directed the Registry of this Court and the lower Courts,

Tribunals and Authorities Subordinate to the High Court to give effect to the

decision of Supreme Court in Udai Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad

Singh & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 269) and if the Vakalatnamas were not found

executed in the manner indicated in the Judgment, the same shall be treated

as deficiency in execution of Vakalatnama making said Vakalatnama liable to

be returned.

4. In order to make out a case of Civil Contempt, it is necessary that there

should be willful disobedience of the Judgment/Decree/Directions/ Order of

court by a person to whom directions are given under the Judgment/Decree/

Directions/Order. Since the directions were given only to Respondent No. 1

and 2 in this case, no case of Contempt would lie against other Respondents.

If the Vakalatnama was not properly executed by Respondent No. 3 to 7, the

Registry was liable to reject the Vakalatnama. It could not be said that non-

execution of Vakalatnama in accordance with the directions laid down in the

Judgment by an Advocate would amount to Contempt of the Court. Even if

the Judgment is treated as Statutory Provision/Direction, non-adherence to

the Statutory Provision does not amount to Contempt. The consequence of

non-adherence are always given in the Statute itself and those consequences

have to follow. In the present case, the consequence of non-adherence to the

directions was given in the Judgment itself and at the most Vakalatnama

could be returned. I, therefore, consider that no Contempt was made out as

against the Respondent No. 3 to 7 under any circumstance. So far as

Respondent No. 1 and 2 are concerned, the issue of Civil Contempt would

arise only if there was a "willful disobedience" of the Judgment. "Willful

disobedience" is the basic requirement for Civil Contempt. It has not been

even alleged by the petitioner that Respondent No. 1 and 2 acted in "willful

disobedience". Word "WILLFUL" signifies a deliberate act showing an

intention to disobey. There are no allegations that Registry had any ulterior

motive or intention in accepting the Vakalatnama filed in O.M.P. No. 660 of

2009. In the absence of these allegations of "willful disobedience" by

Respondent No. 1 and 2, this Petition for Contempt would not lie. Even

otherwise, Department [Registrar (Original), who was handling the O.M.Ps],

has filed an affidavit that she had always maintained the Majesty of this Court

and if any act of omission/commission was on her part which can be

construed as an inaction on her part, she tenders unqualified apology.

5. I consider that since not even an allegation of "willful or intentional

disobedience" of the directions of the Court in accepting Vakalatnama in OMP

was made against Respondent No. 1 and 2, no Contempt was made out.

6. A perusal of Petition would show that the Petitioner had, in fact,

narrated all irrelevant facts which were not necessary for the purpose of

deciding the Petition. The Petition, itself seems to be mis-use of judicial

process and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The Petition is hereby dismissed with cost of ` 25,000/-. Cost to be

paid to Delhi High Court Legal Aid Committee.

JANUARY 17, 2011                             SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm