Ravjibhai Dahyabhai Vaghela vs Prashant Priyadarshi, Regional ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4038 Guj

R/CR.MA/20099/2022                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20099 of 2022

           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12029 of 2015


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                         Yes

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                No
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question                No

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== RAVJIBHAI DAHYABHAI VAGHELA Versus PRASHANT PRIYADARSHI, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OFFICE ========================================================== Appearance:

MR GIRISH M DAS(2323) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR GM JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR BHUVNESH GAHLOT(10286)

MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 05/06/2023

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI)

1. By way of this petition filed under section 14 read with section 2(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), the petitioner

- Ravjibhai Dahyabhai Vaghela has prayed for following relief in terms of para 18(A), 18(B) and 18(C):-

"18(A) Your Lordships be pleased to initiate criminal contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents as per section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for filing and presenting "False frivolous affidavit" before this Hon'ble Court marked as Annex. 'A' dated 31.01.2022, which has been filed willfully and deliberately with intent to obstruct and to interfere with the administration of justice.

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this application, in view of order and affidavit dated 24.10.2018 as quoted in ground b) page no.4, ground f) page 6 of this petition Your Lordship be pleased to verify thoughtfulness of affidavit sworn by Asst. P.F.Comm. Mr. Ritesh Saini, directing PF office to issue each workmen PF slip showing credited amount in individual workman's PF account in the interest of justice or else be pleased to join him as Resp. No.3 and be pleased to prosecute him in the same manner as Resp. No.1 in the interest of justice.

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

application Your Lordships be pleased to direct resp. No.1 to complete PF accounts of all the workmen, qua Employee's share and Employer's share as per prayer in Main S.C.A.No.12029 of 2015 in which present contempt is filed in the interest of justice."

2. Concisely stated facts :- According to the petitioner, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent no.1), though had received Provident Fund amount transferred by the Registry of High Court of Gujarat to Provident Fund Office, did not credit the same in individual PF account of respective workman in total 416, Special Civil Application No.12029 of 2015 was filed seeking direction to the Regional Provident Fund office to disburse the amount. The workman who have sought such direction, were working in the closed Sevalia Cement Unit. According to the petitioner, the amount which was transferred to the High Court of Gujarat and was due for transfer was not credited in the account of workman and in that regard, Assistant Provident Fund Office in conspiracy and collusion with respondent no.2 has played fraud by filing false affidavit from time to time to mislead and obstruct proceedings of High Court of Gujarat depriving innocent workman from their legitimate right of Provident Fund and pension amount.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent no.1, hand in glove with respondent no.2 who is practicing advocate of the High Court of Gujarat had filed affidavit on 31.01.2022 with clear intention to obstruct and tends to lower

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

proceedings of High Court of Gujarat, thus it was amounting to interfering with the administration of justice. Such affidavit was filed in compliance of the order dated 04.01.2022. In the said affidavit, falsely and frivolously, deponent of the affidavit has quoted reference of the order dated 10.10.2016 inspite of the fact that thereafter, several orders have been passed in Special Civil Application No.12029 of 2015. Such false affidavit was filed willfully and deliberately to prevent workman from getting benefit. According to the petitioner filing of false affidavit and giving false statement before this Court as well as drafting of such affidavit by respondent no.2 is amount to contempt of Court punishable under section 14 of the Act. Upon such contentions, present petitioner has filed this contempt proceedings, seeking relief stated above.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. G.M.Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr. Bhuvnesh Ghelot appearing for respondent no.2 raised preliminary issue about the maintainability of this contempt proceedings.

5. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties on the preliminary issue of maintainability of present contempt proceedings.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. G.M.Joshi would argue that petition to initiate contempt of Court can be filed only under section 15 of the Act. He would further submit that such petition can be filed either suo moto by the High Court or if it is filed by the private petitioner, such as present one, it must

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

accompany prior written consent of Advocate General. He would further submit that since present petition is moved by the private individual without obtaining prior written consent of the Advocate General, the petition is not maintainable in view of section 15 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1984. He would further submit that considering the language employed in section 15 of the Act, it is mandatory to obtain prior written consent of the Advocate General, if individual person wants to initiate criminal contempt proceedings. He would further submit that in present case, since the petitioner alleged that the respondents have committed criminal contempt of Court by filing false and frivolous affidavit, petition must accompany written consent of Advocate General, but in absence thereof, the petition deserves no consideration and requires to be rejected.

6.1 To buttress such submission, learned Senior Counsel Mr. G.M.Joshi has relied to following decisions :-

(1) Bijayini Dash v/s. Loknath Mishra reported in 2005(9) SCC 194.

(2) State of Kerala v/s. M.S.Mani reported in 2001 (8) SCC 82.

7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. G.M.Joshi has further submitted that in no judicial proceedings, the Court has declared that respondents have filed false and frivolous affidavit which is interfering with the process of Court. In that event, present petitioner has no locus standi to say that

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

affidavit filed by respondent no.1 and drafted by respondent no.2 who is practicing advocate is false and frivolous affidavit. He would further submit that petitioner has no locus standi to self proclaim that affidavit of respondent no.1 and drafted by respondent no.2 is false and frivolous affidavit which interferes with the proceedings of the Court, tantamounting to criminal contempt. He would further submit that in fact the petitioner by way of filing this petition has resorted to absurd technique, by which he wants to scuttle the voice. Hence such absurd technique must be deprecated, by dismissing the petition.

7.1 Upon such preliminary issue, learned Senior Counsel Mr. G.M.Joshi would submit to dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs.

8. Au contraire, learned advocate Mr. G.M.Das appearing for the petitioner would submit that present contempt petition is filed under section 14 of the Act. He would submit that looking to the language employed in section 14 of the Act, it is not necessary for the private petitioner to seek permission of Advocate General for filing contempt proceedings against the person who has filed false and frivolous affidavit in court proceedings. Taking this Court through judgment of Anil Panjwani v/.s Union of India reported in (2003) 7 SCC 375, he would submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in contempt petition filed under section 14 of the Act, the petitioner is not required to seek permission from Advocate General or Attorney General for filing contempt proceedings.

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

Should it comes on record of the Court that proposed contemnor has adopted the procedure which is contempt on the face of the proceeding of High Court, such petition alleging contempt is maintainable under section 14 of the Act.

9. Learned advocate Mr. G.M.Das for the petitioner by referring to the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of B. Sathishkumar v/s. Secretary to Government Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms reported in Laws (Mad) 2020 10 P. 134, argued that when falsehood has been pleaded by the respondents in the shape of affidavit, same is sufficient to draw proceedings of criminal contempt as understood under section 2(c) read with section 14 of the Act. He would further submit that as it is clear from the record that respondents have filed false affidavit in the proceedings pending before the High Court of Gujarat, it clearly indicates that criminal contempt has been made by respondents as defined under section 2(c) read with section 14 of the Act. He would further submit that since false affidavit has been filed on the face of Court, it would be criminal contempt. He would further submit that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjiv Datta v/s. Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting reported in 1995 (3) SCC 619, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only held the person filing the affidavit guilty but also held the person who drafted the affidavit to be responsible for the same. Referring to para 14 of the said judgment, he would submit that in the present case respondent no.2 has drafted false affidavit and therefore, he is responsible for criminal

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

contempt defined under section 2(c) read with section 14 of the Act.

10. Learned advocate Mr. G.M.Das therefore, submitted that learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi has wrongly placed reliance on section 15 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court Rules. He would submit that in view of Rule 20 of Gujarat High Court Rules, 1984, rules contained in the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 has been made applicable to the High Court of Gujarat and in view of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, if alleged contemnor files false affidavit before the Court, it is contempt on the face of the Court and therefore, necessary proceedings is required to be initiated against respondents, since their act was willful and deliberate to interfere with the proceedings of the Court. He would further submit that present petitioner under section 14 of the Act is just informant to the Court and thus by way of the petition he has informed the Court that present respondents have deliberately and willfully interfered with the Court by filing false affidavit and purge into falsehood to mislead the Court. Hence, now the Court has to take action suo moto under section 15 of the Act. Therefore, present petition under section 14 of the Act is maintainable.

10.1 Making above submission, learned advocate Mr. G.M.Das would submit to overturn the preliminary objection.

11. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by either of the learned advocates for the parties.

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

12. Regard being had to the rival submissions of learned advocates for the both the parties, at the outset, we may refer to section 14, section 15 of the Act and Rule 5 of the Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984 which reads as under :-

"14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. :-

(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon it own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall -

(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged;

(b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge;

(c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and

(d) make such order for the punishment or discharged of such person as may be just.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether orally or in writing, to have

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

the charge against him tried by some Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in any trial of a person charged with contempt under sub-section (1) which is held, in pursuance of a direction given under sub-section (2), by a Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the statement placed before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be treated as evidence in the case.

(4) Pending the determination of the charge, the court may direct that a person charged with contempt under this section shall be detained in such custody as it may specify:

Provided that he shall be released on bail, if a bond for such sum of money as the Court thinks sufficient is executed with or without sureties conditioned that the person charged shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue to so attend

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

until otherwise directed by the Court.

Provided further that the court may, if it thinks fit, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid.

15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases. (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by

(a) the Advocate-General, or

(b)any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General,

(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty."

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

13. Rule 5 of the Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984 read as under :-

"5. Proceedings in Criminal Contempt -- Proceedings in connection with a criminal contempt may be initiated -

(a) on a motion of the High Court in respect of a contempt committed upon its own view u/s 14 of the Act, or

(b) on its own motion by the High Court u/s 15(1) of the Act; or

(c) on a motion founded on a petition presented by the Advocate General u/s 15(1)(a) or Section 15(2) of the Act; or

(d) on a motion founded on a petition presented by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate- General under section 15(1) (b) of the Act; or

(e) on a reference made to the High Court by the Subordinate Courts u/s 15(2) of the Act."

14. A reasonable interpretation of section 14 of the Act contemplates that when during hearing or in presence, if Supreme Court or High Court forms own view that the person has been guilty of contempt, then the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, or as early as possible, shall be issued notice informing in writing of the contempt with which he is charged and also afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge and the Court may take evidence in this regard and then pass punishment order.

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

Therefore, the procedure laid down in section 14 of the Act is for Supreme Court and High Court to adopt when Supreme Court or High Court forms own view that person has committed contempt on the face of the Court and if the Court forms opinion on its own view, it may detain that person on the same day and issue notice to him informing in writing of contempt for which he is charged. Thus, procedure is meant for the Court to initiate contempt. Third party or private individual has not been given right under section 14 of the Act to file any contempt proceedings against any other party.

15. Insofar as section 15 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984 is concerned, it empowers the Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings on its own motion or motion made by the Advocate General or any other person, however, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Rule 5 of the said Rules indicates procedure that how proceedings for criminal contempt is to be proceeded, if High Court has taken cognizance of contempt on its own motion under section 14 of the Act or in case, if High Court takes cognizance of contempt under section 15(1) of the Act or if motion is moved on the petition presented by Advocate General under section 15(1)(a) or section 15(2) of the Act or on motion founded on a petition by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General under section 15(1)(b) of the Act.

16. Perusal of this petition, indicates that present petitioner has alleged that respondent no.1 has filed false and frivolous

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

affidavit in the Court proceedings, which was drafted by respondent no.2 and thereby respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly have committed contempt of Court as they have deliberately and willfully obstructed justice delivery system defined in section 2(c) of the Act.

17. Learned advocate Mr. G.M.Das for the petitioner in order to meet with preliminary objection and to sustain this petition has placed reliance on section 14 of the Act. However, section 14 of the Act does not give any right to any private party to initiate contempt proceedings. It is Court's own power to initiate contempt proceedings and as far as possible during same day of hearing. It has not authorized any private party to initiate contempt proceedings under section 14 of the Act. Private party has been given right to initiate contempt proceedings only under section 15(1)(b) of the Act but with rider of the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Whenever, any private party suppose to initiate contempt proceedings under section 15(1)(b) of the Act, consent of Advocate General in writing is condition precedent. The Law maker has used the words "with the consent" for petition filed under section 15(1)(b). The expression "with the consent" makes abundantly clear that whenever criminal contempt under section 15(1)(b) of the Act, is to be initiated, it has to be with the consent of Advocate General. In present case, no such consent has been obtained by the petitioner; nor has attached written consent along with the petition. Therefore, filing of such petition without taking written consent of Advocate General is not maintainable. Insofar as placing

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

reliance on section 14 of the Act for filing this petition is concerned, as stated herein above, is misplaced.

18. In the case of M.S.Mani (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clear the position of law in regards to issue under contemplation. Para 6 and 7 of the said judgment reads as under :-

"6. The requirement of consent of the Advocate General/ Attorney General/ Solicitor General where any person other than the said law officers makes motion in the case of a criminal contempt in a High Court or Supreme Court, as the case may be, is not a mere formality, it has a salutary purpose. The said law officers being the highest law officers at the level of the State/Centre as also the officers of the Courts are vitally interested in the purity of the administration of justice and in preserving the dignity of the Courts. They are expected to examine whether the averments in the proposed motion of a criminal contempt are made vindicating public interest or personal vendetta and accord or decline consent postulated in the said provisions. Further cases found to be vexatious, malicious or motivated by personal vendetta and not in public interest will get filtered at that level. If a motion of criminal contempt in the High Court/Supreme Court is not accompanied by the written consent of the aforementioned law officers, the very purpose of the requirement of prior consent will be frustrated. For a valid motion compliance with the requirements of Section 15 of the Act is

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

mandatory. A motion under Section 15 not in conformity with the provisions of Section 15, is not maintainable. /See : Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus and Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 89 and P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 167]. In this view of the matter, law has been correctly laid down by the Orissa High Court in B.K. Misra v. Chief Justice, Orissa High Court, AIR (1974) Orissa 1, The Patna High Court in Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Ors. v. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed, AIR (1986) Patna 65 and the Bombay High Court in Vishwanath v. E.S. Venkatarmiah and Ors., (1990) Crl. L.J. 2179 Bombay. We may also note here that non- compliance of Section 7 of the English Contempt of Court Act, 1981, referred to above, was held to be fatal to the action. [Borrie and Lowe-The Law of Contempt, 3rd Edn., P. 481 (Note 14)}.

7. Here, the Contempt Petition was filed on May 17, 1999 and the consent of the learned Attorney General was obtained on May 11, 2000. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now Section 15 has been complied with. We are unable to accede to this contention. The fact remains that the motion to take action against the respondents under Section 15 was not made with the consent of the learned Attorney General or Solicitor General and therefore is incompetent. Subsequent obtaining of the consent, in our view, does not cure the initial defect so as to convert the incompetent motion into a maintainable petition."

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

19. In later decision in the case of Bijayini Dash (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken cue from judgment of M.S.Mani (supra) and in para 2 has held as under :-

"(2) Under the contempt of Courts Act, the petition seeking the punishment for contempt can be invoked by a party only with the prior written consent of the Advocate General of the State under section 15 of the said Act. This position in law is now well settled by judgments of this Court in the case of State of Kerala v/s. M.S.Mani and Bal Thackrey v/s. Harish Pimpalkhute wherein it is held that prior written sanction of the Advocate General under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is a mandatory requirement for invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the Court by a private party."

20. With profit, we may refer to judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirmalaben Waghela vs. Raman Maheriya reported in 2003 (1) GLR 505, where in para 4 and 5 reads as under :-

"4. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act provides that in the case of criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General, or any other person, with the consent of the Advocate General.

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

5. Indisputably, this Court is not taking any suo motu action in respect of the alleged criminal contempt against the opponent. The learned Advocate General has also not moved for taking action against the applicant for the alleged criminal contempt. The action against the opponent for the alleged criminal contempt may be initiated at the instance of the applicant, who falls in the category of `any other person' as provided in clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, but for initiating proceeding for criminal contempt against the opponent at the behest of the applicant, the consent in writing of the Advocate General is a condition precedent. Admittedly, there is no consent in writing of the Advocate General. Thus, the instant motion for initiating proceeding for criminal contempt against the opponent, at the behest of the applicant, is not maintainable. Indeed, it is barred."

21. The issue is no more res-integra. Private party if seeks punishment for contempt of Court, he can file petition only under section 15 of the Act, but with prior written consent of Advocate General. In the present case, admittedly, no such prior written consent has been obtained by the private party i.e. the present petitioner and as such private party has not fulfilled mandatory requirement for invoking contempt jurisdiction of the Court. Petition for contempt proceedings under section 14 of the Act at the behest of the petitioner being third party is not maintainable. It is trite to note that the petitioner has not produced any order / observation of the

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

Court where it is observed or held that respondent nos.1 has filed false and frivolous affidavit which was drafted by respondent no.2. Thus, it is petitioner's own assertion that respondent no.1 has filed false and frivolous affidavit which is drafted by respondent no.2 and as such it is contempt of Court. In our view, no Court has taken view or atleast the petitioner has failed to display that competent Court has taken view that respondent no.1 has filed false affidavit drafted by respondent no.2 which is interfering with the justice delivery system or scandalizing or lower the authority of any Court or proceeding or interfering or obstructing any judicial process in any other manner. Rather, this petition seems to have been moved to settle personal dispute / difference.

22. Insofar as judgment in the case of Anil Panjwani (supra) relied upon by learned advocate Mr. G.M.Das is concerned, it is the case where scurrilous attack was made by the petitioner on Hon'ble Supreme Court Judge through irresponsible, unfounded and reckless allegations contained in his affidavit, filed during course of proceedings, which remained to be disposed of. Therefore, on such fact, Hon'ble Supreme Court has resorted to section 14 of the Act to punish the contemnor. In that case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has formed opinion that there was gross contempt in the presence of the Court. This judgment by no means help the case of the petitioner.

23. Insofar as judgment of Madras High Court in the case of B.Sathishkumar (supra) is concerned, the Madras High Court

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

has observed that one who drafted false and frivolous affidavit is also responsible for contemptuous conduct. But entire judgment was on different aspect and it would not render any assistance to the present petitioner.

24. Crept through the entire petition filed the present petitioner, it seems that this petition indicates that the petitioner - private party has abused process of Court to seek private benefit and settle the score. This petition indicates blatant misuse of process of Court to achieve crocked objective. The fact remains that petitioner though has no locus standi, initiated contempt proceedings, under section 15(1)(b) of the Act without prior written consent of Advocate General, the petitioner has approached this Court for settling the score without obtaining any prior permission of the Advocate General. For such conspicuous and rigorous misuse of process of Court is required to be deprecated. It cannot go in notice that all the Courts across the country are obdurate with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filing of the petition constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice and put judicial infrastructure congest and jam. Due to such irresponsible and groundless litigation, the doors for substantive litigation would be shut because of weight of undeserving cases. Present petition, falls in such category, is thus required to be rejected but with exemplary costs.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v/s. Pradnya Prakash Khandekar reported in 2017 (5) SCC 496 found disfavour for such kind of cases and

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

directed the Courts across the country to impose exemplary cost while negating undeserving cases. Para 13 and 14 of the said judgment reads as under :-

"13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth.

14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner."

R/CR.MA/20099/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023

26. For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objection raised by learned Senior Counsel Mr. G.M.Joshi for the respondent sustains. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs.10,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within seven days from today. In non compliance, amount of cost shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

(ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J)

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH