Delhi High Court
Deepak Khosla vs Pramod Kumar & Ors on 2 June, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT. CAS(C) 345/2016
Date of Decision : June 02nd, 2016
DEEPAK KHOSLA .....Petitioner
Through In person.
versus
PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS .....Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the
respondents i.e. respondent no.1-Mr.Pramod Kumar, Deputy Registrar
(Listing), respondent no.2-Mr. Lorren Bamniyal, Registrar (Listing)
and respondent no.3-Delhi High Court claiming to be arising from
violation of order dated 29.05.2015 passed by this Court in Contempt
Case (Crl.) 9 of 2014 & Contempt Case (Crl.) 12 of 2014, both titled
"Court on its own motion vs. Deepak Khosla".
2. In the petition, it is contended that vide order dated 29.05.2015,
this Court had made it mandatory for the High Court Registry to place
both the proceedings before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a
larger Bench of 3 Judges to try the petitioner. It is further contended
that despite clear directions in the orders dated 29.05.2015, respondent
nos.1 and 2 put up a misleading note before Hon'ble the Chief Justice
on 01.07.2015 which led to the belief that only a direction relating to
constitution of 2-Member Bench was issued, whereas they knowingly
and deliberately excluded from their note the direction to place the
matter to constitute a larger Bench of 3 Judges. The petitioner has
prayed for initiation of proceedings against the respondents under the
Contempt of Courts Act; punish respondent no.1 under Section 12(1)
of the Act; take suo motu cognizance of the offence of criminal
contempt by respondent no.1; cost of Rs.1,50,000/- be directed to be
reimbursed by the respondents and order the respondents to pay at
least Rs.10 crores to the petitioner while exercising powers under
Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. Contempt of Court refers to such actions which defy the
authority of a Court. Civil contempt of Court happens when someone
fails to adhere to an order from the Court, which results into injury to
the right of a private person. Civil Contempt of Court has been defined
in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as
under :
"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."
4. In Para. 50 of the order dated 29.05.2015 passed in Cont. Case
(Crl.) No.12/2014, it was observed by this Court that :
"So far as the objection D is concerned, since we
have already directed that the matter be placed
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice in terms of
Section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench,
therefore, we deem it fit that the Hon'ble Chief
Justice may take a view on this objection raised by
the respondent herein."
5. The grouse of the petitioner is that he argued before the Court
that he is an Advocate and as per the directions of the Court vide
orders dated 29.05.2015 passed in Contempt Case (Crl.) Nos.9/2014
and 12/2014, the matter should be referred to Full Bench as per
Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the Office did not put
appropriate note to mark the matter to the larger bench.
6. I have heard the petitioner at length.
7. Perusal of the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by this Court in
Contempt Case (Crl.) No.12/2014 shows that in the order it was never
directed to constitute or refer the matter to a larger Bench. The
observations made in the order dated 29.05.2015 are to the effect that
so far as objection D of the petitioner was concerned, the Bench
already directed that the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief
Justice in terms of Section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
for assigning the same to the "appropriate bench".
8. In pursuance of the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by this Court
in Contempt Case (Crl.) Nos.9/2014 and 12/2014, the office note
under challenge was prepared by the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Undisputedly, respondent nos.1 and 2 are the Officers of this Court
dealing with the listing of the matters. The job of respondent nos.1
and 2 is to put the noting for perusal/direction of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice. The noting prepared in the present matter, which has been
questioned by the petitioner, does not mention anything which could
misdirect or add the views of respondent nos.1 and 2 in the directions
to be issued by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. More the reason that in
para 51 of the order dated 29.05.2015 passed in Cont. Cas (Crl.)
No.12/2014, it was specifically directed that the matter be placed
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing the matter before the
appropriate bench for necessary direction and the same has been
reflected from the noting prepared by the respondent nos.1 and 2.
From no stretch of imagination, it could be inferred that the noting put
up by the respondent nos.1 and 2 is in the capacity of assisting staff to
reach just decision/direction. More the reason, a perusal of the orders
dated 29.05.2015 clearly shows that the words used by this Court were
"appropriate Bench" and not larger Bench. This court finds no reason
to interpret the words "appropriate Bench" as only to mean larger
Bench.
9. So far the respondent no.3 is concerned, it happens to be an
institution. The allegations with regard to willful disobedience could
be attributed against an individual or the person concerned, but
definitely not against an institution. More the reason that the
alternative reliefs claimed in the present petition cannot be claimed as
the reliefs in the petition under Contempt of Courts Act.
10. From the totality of the circumstances i.e. no direction to place
the matter to the larger Bench; direction of the Court to refer the
matter to an 'appropriate Bench'; noting prepared by the respondent
nos.1 and 2 to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
marking the matter to the appropriate Bench and the fact that no
contempt lies against an institution culminates into the conclusion that
the petitioner in the contempt petition failed to make out the case of
civil contempt under Section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 against the respondents. Consequently, it leads to the dismissal
of the present petition.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
JUNE 02, 2016
dd
