Delhi High Court

Ram Niwas Jain vs Ministry Of Home Affairs & Others on 20 January, 2015

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 20th January, 2015

+              W.P.(C) 3673/2013 & CM Nos.15368/2013 & 10465/2014

       RAM NIWAS JAIN                                         ..... Petitioner
                    Through:            Mr. Pravir Chowdhury, Adv.

                                 Versus

    MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & OTHERS ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Saqib, Adv. for R-1.
                           Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel for
                           CBI.
                           Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing
                           Counsel, GNCTD for R-4 and 5.
                           Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                           Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Govind
                           Kumar & Mr. Anshuman Nayak, Adv.
                           for R-6 to 8.
                           Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. for the
                           applicant in CM No.15368/2013.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed

as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), pleading:

(i) that the petitioner had „recently‟ come to know of a big land

scam carried out by the officials of the Land & Building Department

of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and was hence filing the petition to

protect the public land;

(ii) that the petitioner had learnt that certain persons including

respondents no. 7 and 8 i.e. Additional Secretary, Land & Building

Department and ASC-cum-ACG of the said Department had tampered

and forged documents to procure allotment of government land,

without any justification and the officials who were responsible for

protecting the government land had colluded, having vested interest;

(iii) that the residents of Delhi were adversely affected due to such

illegal allotment of land, on the basis of forged and fabricated

documents, inasmuch as making of such illegal allotment of land was

to the prejudice of residents of Delhi genuinely entitled to government

land;

(iv) that the petitioner is a public spirited person running a

proprietorship trade and business and is an income tax payee having

satisfactory financial condition and is ready to bear the cost, if

imposed by this Court;

(v) that though the petitioner prior to filing of the petition, had

represented inter alia to the respondents no. 1 to 6 i.e. Govt. of India,

Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) and various other offices of GNCTD as well as to

various other authorities, but no action had been taken;

(vi) that claim of one Mst. Waziran in whom the officials had a

vested interest had been allowed with respect to land comprised in

Khasra No.143, 695, 172, 340 and 343 of Village Gadaipur, Mehrauli,

Delhi, by tampering the revenue record; the land entitlement of the

said Mst. Waziran had been calculated as 72 bighas, in place of 5

bighas and 12 biswas only which was owned by the husband of Mst.

Waziran;

(vii) that neither the husband of Mst. Waziran nor Mst. Waziran had

ever in the past made a claim for 72 bighas of land, which was made

belatedly in the year 2006;

(viii) that the documents of the year 1996, show that Islam, being the

husband of Mst. Waziran, owned much smaller land than 72 bighas, to

which Mst. Waziran had been found entitled and had been allotted in

Village Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi;

(ix) that as part of the said manipulation, land recorded in the

revenue records in the name of one Nasiruddin who had no connection

with Mst. Waziran had also been allotted to Mst. Waziran;

(x) that the manipulation of revenue records was apparent on the

face of the record;

(xi) that though Mst. Waziran on an earlier occasion, in a judicial

record, had given a statement that she did not know any person by the

name of Nasiruddin, however the said document had been removed

from the judicial records;

(xii) that the petition is not guided by self gain of the petitioner or

any other person, institution, body and that there is no motive other

than of public interest in filing the petition.

Accordingly, the relief of directing the authorities i.e.

respondent no. 1 to 6 viz. the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central

Vigilance Commission (CVC), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),

Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and Directorate of Vigilance,

GNCTD to investigate into the matter and the complaints made by the

petitioner and of ultimate cancellation of allotment of land

admeasuring 72 bighas 2 biswas in Khasra No.143, 695, 172, 340 and

343 at Village Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi in favour of Mst.

Waziran was claimed.

2. Though the petition was prefaced with a plea of flagging a "big land

scam" but as the aforesaid would show, was directed solely against the

allotment of land made in favour of Mst. Waziran. However, surprisingly

the said Mst. Waziran was not made a respondent in the petition.

3. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued.

4. CM No.15368/2013 was filed by Mst. Waziran for impleadment as a

party to this petition, pleading inter alia that the present petition though titled

as a PIL was the outcome of a personal / family dispute between the said

Mst. Waziran and her brother-in-law Mohd. Akhtar who, on the basis of

forged and fabricated documents, had purported to transfer her land to one

Ms. Suman Jain wife of Mr. V.K. Jain; that Mst. Waziran, on coming to

know of the same had approached the Economic Offences Wing, Crime

Branch, Delhi Police and FIR No.37/2012 in this regard registered; that

during investigation, the documents fabricated / manufactured by Mohd.

Akhtar in collusion with Mr. V.K. Jain were sent to CFSL for forensic

examination and report whereof was that the signatures purportedly of Mst.

Waziran thereon were in fact not of Mst. Waziran. It was further pleaded

that the said Mohd. Akhtar and Mr. V.K. Jain along with their accomplices

since then had been harassing and threatening Mst. Waziran and in which

respect, on failure of the police to register another FIR, a complaint under

Section 156(3) CrPC had been filed. It was the case of Mst. Waziran, that

the present PIL is at the instance of the said Mr. V.K. Jain.

5. The aforesaid application of Mst. Waziran came up before this Court

first on 13th November, 2013 when the counsel for Mst. Waziran contended

that the petitioner Mr. Ram Niwas Jain is related to Ms. Suman Jain wife of

Mr. V.K. Jain who is the accused in FIR No.37/2012 supra. The counsel

then appearing for the respondents No.7&8 also stated that some of the

documents filed along with this petition had in fact been supplied by the

office of the respondents to Mohd. Akhtar and on the basis thereof he also

supported the contention of Mst. Waziran that the present petition had been

filed at the instance of Mohd. Akhtar and Ms. Suman Jain, in the garb of a

PIL.

6. This Court, vide order dated 13th November, 2013, "keeping in view

the serious allegations" of misuse of PIL and taking note of the fact that a

large number of private interest litigation are being filed in the guise of

public interest litigation, to settle private lis, directed the CBI to conduct a

preliminary inquiry to the limited extent to find out relationship of the

petitioner with any of the accused in FIR No.37/2012 as well as whether the

present petition had been filed at the instance of Mohd. Akhtar or of Ms.

Suman Jain or of any other accused in the FIR.

7. CBI filed a status report dated 6th February, 2014 to the extent that the

petitioner in this PIL is related to Mr. V.K. Jain and that Mr. V.K. Jain and

his family were involved in the present PIL for their personal interest. It was

further informed that a large number of telephone calls were exchanged

between Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate then appearing for the petitioner and Mr.

V.K. Jain.

8. When the aforesaid report of the CBI came before this Court on 7th

February, 2014, Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate did not deny the relationship

between the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Jain or that large number of telephone

calls were exchanged between him and Mr. V.K. Jain and stated that he was

the counsel of Mr. V.K. Jain in as many as ten matters and that the telephone

calls exchanged by him with Mr. V.K. Jain were in connection with those

other matters and insisted that this PIL had nothing to do with the

relationship between the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Jain or the fact he himself

was the counsel of Mr. V.K. Jain in other matters. However, when we

enquired from Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate, whether not as per the Rules

pertaining to PILs framed by this Court, he was required to disclose the said

facts, Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate sought permission to withdraw himself from

the brief. However, since none else was present for the petitioner, we

directed the personal appearance of the petitioner on the next date of hearing.

9. Though Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate on 7th February, 2014 had

withdrawn himself from the brief but on 26th February, 2014 when the matter

came up before a Bench other than the Bench which had quizzed him on 7th

February, 2014, he again appeared. On that date, the matter was simply

renotified to 14th July, 2014.

10. On 14th July, 2014, none appeared for the petitioner. Bailable

warrants were accordingly issued for production of the petitioner.

11. The petitioner appeared before this Court on 20 th August, 2014

through another Advocate and controverted that the present petition in the

garb of PIL was filed for personal reasons. This Court, being prima facie of

the view that the action of the petitioner in filing this PIL by suppressing the

true facts, amounted to obstructing administration of justice, we called upon

the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated

against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for criminal contempt.

12. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 16th September, 2014 by

way of reply to the show cause notice supra served on him, reiterating the

contents of the writ petition and with respect to the report of the CBI,

pleading:

(a) that the conclusion drawn by CBI, from the factum of the

petitioner along with the petition having filed documents which were

supplied to Mohd. Akhtar to the effect that the petitioner is the shadow

of Mr. V.K. Jain, Ms. Suman Jain, Mr. Puneet Kumar Jain and Mohd.

Akhtar, is erroneous inasmuch as the said documents were supplied to

the petitioner by one Mr. Shahid Ul Haq who was not connected to

V.K. Jain, Ms. Suman Jain, Mr. Puneet Kumar Jain and Mohd.

Akhtar;

(b) that the CBI had failed to examine Mohd. Akhtar;

(c) that all information pertaining to the said land scam had been

obtained by the petitioner from the said Mr. Shahid Ul Haq who is a

Urdu Translator working outside the office of the Tehsildar, Mehrauli;

(d) that the said Mr. Shahid Ul Haq had denied having received

documents from the said Mohd. Akhtar;

(e) that it was not necessary for the petitioner in this PIL to disclose

his relationship with Mr. V.K. Jain and Ms. Suman Jain;

(f) that though Mr. V.K. Jain is cousin of the petitioner but this

relationship has nothing to do with filing of this petition;

(g) that there is no link to connect the petitioner with Mohd. Akhtar

and there is nothing to conclude that the petitioner acted as a shadow

at the behest of Mohd. Akhtar;

(h) that the petitioner is in no way connected with any of the

business or activities of Mr. V.K. Jain which are subject matter of FIR

No.37/2012;

(i) that the subject matter of FIR was some other land than the land

admeasuring 72 bighas and 2 biswas, subject matter of the present

petition;

(j) that though there were 453 calls made during the course of one

year between the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Jain and Mr. Puneet Kumar

Jain but the same amounted to only one call per day;

(k) that the CBI did not consider the possibility of other family

members of petitioner and Mr. V.K. Jain using the said mobile phones

to talk to each other;

(l) that though Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate was the Advocate for Mr.

V.K. Jain, the said Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate had been engaged by the

petitioner in this PIL as Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate is also known to the

petitioner and had dealt with some litigations of the petitioner in the

past;

(m) that 647 telephone calls between Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate and

Mr. V.K. Jain were in relation to the other cases of Mr. V.K. Jain

being handled by Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate;

(n) that FIR No.37/2012 cannot be permitted to be used as a shield

to prevent the unearthing of the huge land scam of illegal allotment of

72 bighas 2 biswas of govt. land in Village Gadaipur, Mehrauli to Mst.

Waziran;

(o) that the factum of the petitioner filing the present petition did

not amount to contempt of Court within the parameters laid down by

the Supreme Court in Delhi Judicial Services Association Vs. State of

Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406;

(p) that no relevant facts had been suppressed by the petitioner from

the petition;

(q) that there is till date nothing to show that the petitioner had any

personal interest in filing the PIL or that the filing of the present

petition would confer any personal benefit to Mr. V.K. Jain;

(r) that the petitioner is not trying to protect Mr. V.K. Jain in any

manner whatsoever;

(s) that this Court, instead of proceeding with the petition and

verifying whether public land had been wrongly allotted to Mst.

Waziran had started inquiring against the petitioner;

(t) that the ingredients of Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act

are not satisfied;

(u) that the petitioner ought not to be penalized for flagging illegal

allotment of govt. land;

(v) that the conclusion drawn by CBI that the present petition is

guided by personal motives is erroneous, as the petitioner is in no way

connected to the disputes between Mst. Waziran and Mr. V.K. Jain.

Accordingly, the suo moto contempt proceedings initiated

against him should be dropped and the PIL should be proceeded with

further.

13. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 3rd December, 2014,

adjournment was sought on the ground that the petitioner had preferred a

Special Leave Petition (SLP) to the Supreme Court against the order dated

20th August, 2014 and which was posted on 8th December, 2014.

14. The counsel for the petitioner during the hearing on 11 th December,

2014 argued on the same lines as affidavit above. On his request for giving

permission to file written submissions, judgment was reserved. Written

submissions have been filed by the counsel for the petitioner reiterating the

aforesaid pleas.

15. We may at the outset state that though the petitioner has prefaced the

affidavit by way of reply to the notice issued to him as well as the written

arguments with an unconditional apology and seeking pardon "in case this

Hon‟ble Court is still of the view that the contemnor had committed

contempt" of this Court but neither the petitioner nor the counsel during the

hearing adverted thereto and have rather contested the notice supra issued to

the petitioner. The Supreme Court recently in Bal Kishan Giri Vs. State of

U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 280 has held that apology should be unquestionable in

sincerity, tempered with sense of genuine remorse and repentance, and not a

calculated strategy to avoid punishment. It was held that apology, when

hollow, cannot be accepted as it is then a "paper apology". It was further held

that expression of sorrow has to come from the heart and not from the pen,

for it is one thing to „say sorry‟ and it is another to „feel sorry‟. Applying the

said tests, the question of considering the apology, only on paper, does not

arise.

16. The tool of PIL, enabling the High Courts and the Supreme Court to

be approached by a person, without any cause of action or personal injury to

himself / herself being shown, as was the fundamental requirement till then

was for approaching the Court, was devised by the Supreme Court to provide

access to Courts and to justice to persons who were unable to do so

themselves for the reason of social or economic backwardness. The tool of

PIL was subsequently extended, also to matters where the injury, instead of

being to any particular person, was to the entire citizenry or a section thereof.

Since in PILs, the petitioner had no personal interest and was merely, in a

public spirit, flagging an issue concerning somebody else who was himself /

herself / themselves unable to access the Courts for justice or as members of

the public in general, the Courts in PILs also started relaxing the rule, of the

burden of proof / onus being on the person approaching the Court. However,

soon it was realized that taking advantage of such leniency and which

resulted in the Courts sometimes instead of adjudicatory, also entering into

the domain of investigatory role, the said tool of PIL came to be misused.

The Supreme Court, ultimately in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh

Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402 issued broad guidelines with respect to PILs and

directed the High Courts to frame rules with respect to PILs to curb the

misuse thereof. Subsequently, in State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Chaubey (2010)

10 SCC 320 was also directed that PILs should generally be heard only by

the Bench designated by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

17. This Court also, in pursuance to the said directions, has framed the

rules for PILs in 2010 , titled Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation)

Rules, 2010 so as to nip in the bud the possibility of misuse of PILs. The

said rules inter alia require the petitioner to in the petition itself, make a

declaration that the petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and

that the petition is not guided by self gain or for gain of any other

person/institution/body and that there is no motive other that that of public

interest in filing the writ petition. The petitioner, in compliance with such

rules, has made such a declaration in the petition.

18. However, what the CBI in pursuance to the inquiry ordered by this

Court, has reported, is:

(A) that the petitioner during inquiry accepted that Mr. V.K. Jain is

his cousin;

(B) the petitioner claimed that he had obtained photocopies of

certified copies filed along with the petition from Mr. Shahid Ul Haq

who is an Urdu Translator working outside the office of the Tehsil,

Mehrauli, New Delhi;

(C) that the said certified copies had in fact been applied for by

Mohd. Akhtar;

(D) that the wife of said Mr. V.K. Jain claims to have acquired some

immovable property from Mohd. Akhtar and in relation to which

immovable property, Mst. Waziran has filed FIR No.37/2012 against

Mohd. Akhtar and Mr. V.K. Jain and his wife;

(E) that Mr. V.K. Jain also admitted knowledge of the present PIL,

though denied having any concern therewith;

(F) that Mst. Waziran claimed of being pressurized to withdraw the

FIR and of which threat she had filed complaint;

(G) that 453 telephone calls were exchanged between Mr. V.K. Jain

and the petitioner between December, 2012 and November, 2013 and

from which it is evident that the petitioner has been in constant touch

with Mr. V.K. Jain;

(H) that during the pendency of the present petition itself (from

May, 2013 onwards), there were 5 calls between the petitioner and Mr.

S.D. Singh, Advocate, while there were 460 calls between Mr. S.D.

Singh, Advocate and Mr. V.K. Jain and which established that even

the Advocate for the petitioner was in constant touch with Mr. V.K.

Jain rather than with the petitioner;

(I) that Mr. Shahid Ul Haq from whom the petitioner claimed to

have collected photocopies of the certified copies filed before this

Court had admitted providing photocopies to the petitioner but the said

certified copies had been applied for by Mohd. Akhtar;

(J) that Mohd. Akhtar despite summoning did not join the

investigation on the pretext that either he was out of town or unwell.

19. We had during the hearing enquired, what the business of the

petitioner was/is and were told that he is carrying the business of trading in

wires at Shahbad Extension. Since the petitioner, though in the petition

claimed to be a public spirited person but has not stated having filed any

other PIL in the past, we had during the hearing also enquired, whether the

petitioner in the past had filed any PIL or done anything else in public

interest. Nothing was informed. Further, since the petition though

purporting to draw the attention of this Court to a big land scam, was in fact

directed against only one transaction concerning Mst. Waziran and finding

that the petitioner had not disclosed in the petition, as to how his attention

was drawn to the said transaction, we had further enquired from the counsel

for the petitioner, as to how the petitioner came to know of and got interested

and made enquires about the said transaction. Again, no reply was

forthcoming. The counsel for the petitioner could not also tell, as to how the

petitioner came to approach Mr. Shahid Ul Haq from whom he claimed to

have collected photocopies of certain certified copies filed before this Court.

Though it was claimed that Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate through whom the

petitioner had filed this petition, was counsel for the petitioner in some

litigations, but no particulars of those litigations also were forthcoming. No

proof of payment of any professional fee by the petitioner to Mr. S.D. Singh,

Advocate also has been furnished. On the contrary, it is admitted that Mr.

S.D. Singh, Advocate who has filed this petition on behalf of the petitioner is

the regular Advocate of Mr. V.K. Jain.

20. In the face of the aforesaid, the inference is clear and strong that the

petitioner has merely lent his name to the present petition which in fact has

been filed at the instance of Mr. V.K. Jain who is involved in litigation with

Mst. Waziran. The huge disparity in the number of telephone calls which

Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate exchanged with the petitioner (i.e. 5 in number)

and which he exchanged with Mr. V.K. Jain (i.e. 647 in number) during the

pendency of this petition also speaks volumes in favour of the instructions

qua this petition to Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate flowing from Mr. V.K. Jain

and not from the petitioner. Though it was vaguely claimed that the said 647

telephone calls were in the context of other litigations which Mr. S.D. Singh,

Advocate is handling for Mr. V.K. Jain and his family and not in the context

of present litigation but neither any details of the said litigations were given

nor any dates of hearing therein to show that the telephone calls were in

relation thereto.

21. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation

whatsoever in concluding, not only that the petitioner in the present petition

filed as PIL, falsely declared:

(i) that there is no personal interest involved; and,

(ii) that the petition is not guided by self gain or the gain of any

other person;

but also that the defence of the petitioner to the show cause notice issued to him is false and the petitioner therein has persisted in the falsity.

22. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter

of the present petition is different from the subject matter of FIR

No.37/2012, is also of no avail. Mr. V.K. Jain who we have found to be the

face behind this petition, is claiming to have validly acquired the land subject

matter of FIR No.37/2012, which Mst. Waziran is claiming to be hers.

Naturally, Mr. V.K. Jain would not be interested in losing that land. It is

clear, that the petitioner in this PIL, on behalf of Mr. V.K. Jain is seeking

investigation into allotment of another land to Mst. Waziran.The only reason

could be to pressurize Mst. Waziran to not challenge the transfer of the land,

subject matter of FIR No.37/2012 to Mr. V.K. Jain. The petitioner has

clearly been privy, rather guilty of not only making false declarations on oath

before this Court but has also been privy to abuse of the process of this

Court.

23. The Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

(2008) 12 SCC 481 reiterated in Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 2

SCC 398 held that a litigant who plays hide & seek with the courts or adopts

pick and choose and does not come with candid facts and clean breast is

required to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the

Court. Similarly in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 639, it was held that a person seeking relief in public

interest should approach the court of equity not only with clean hands but

also with a clean mind, clean heart and clean objective and that whenever the

Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused,

the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further with the matter. A

false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings, intentionally to

mislead the Court and obtain a favourable order was held to be amounting to

criminal contempt as it tends to impede the administration of justice,

adversely affecting the interest of the public in the administration of justice.

It was held that false statements obstruct the due course of justice and

undermine the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice which has to be

kept clear and pure and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by

soiling its purity. Earlier also, in Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana

(1995) 3 SCC 757 the Supreme Court had ordered the CBI to inquire into the

truthfulness of the allegations made in the petition and on the basis of the

CBI report had held the said averments to be false and held the petitioner in

that case to be guilty of criminal contempt and meted out punishment to him.

Infact, it was for the first time in Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma

(1995) 1 SCC 421 that immoral acts of perjury, pre-variation and motivated

falsehoods were held to be amounting to criminal contempt observing that if

such actions were not appropriately dealt with, it would not be possible for

any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of

those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. It was

further held that if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the

same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of justice and

would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties as they are

supposed to do.

24. Though the petitioner has not raised any argument with respect to the

procedure followed by us but we may record that this Court by virtue of

Article 215 of the Constitution of India is entitled to punish for contempt of

itself and we find the acts of the petitioner of making false statements in the

petition and in the affidavit accompanying the petition, with an oblique

motive, to obtain a favourable order to be amounting to criminal contempt.

We have given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and

now proceed to punish the petitioner therefor.

25. We are of the view that after the warning sounded by the Supreme

Court and the Rules relating to PILs framed by this Court, the petitioner

cannot be heard to say that the filing of this PIL directed against one

individual only and with whom a close relative of the petitioner had reasons

to settle score with and with which close relative the petitioner as well as his

Advocate were in constant touch, has nothing to do with the said close

relative or his dispute with the person against whom the PIL is directed or

that the petitioner was not required to disclose the said facts to this Court.

We have pondered over the punishment to be meted out to the petitioner.

The filing of the false affidavit by the petitioner, knowing the same to be

false, in our view cannot be treated lightly. The law and the Courts should

not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free. (Jennison Vs.

Baker [1972] 1 All E.R. 997).

26. We accordingly:

(a) dismiss the present petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by

the petitioner to Mst. Waziran within one month;

(b) hold the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt of this Court;

(c) punish the petitioner with imprisonment for a period of three

days;

(d) however, the said sentence imposed upon the petitioner is

suspended for a period of one month to enable the petitioner to, if so

desires, avail his remedy. Unless there is an order to the contrary, the

petitioner to surrender himself to the Station House Officer (SHO),

Police Station-Tilak Marg, New Delhi on the 31st day of this order and

where upon he shall be incarcerated to serve the punishment imposed

on him. Needless to state, if the petitioner does not surrender himself,

the SHO, Police Station-Tilak Marg, New Delhi is directed to arrest

the petitioner of whose address is given herein below: