Jharkhand High Court
Avinash Kumar Srivastava vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. ... ... Opp. ... on 9 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Contempt Case (Criminal) (DB) No. 10 of 2023
----------
Avinash Kumar Srivastava ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Anr. ... ... Opp. Parties/Contemnor(s)
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Rajeev Sinha, Advocate
For the OP-State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
----------------------------
ORAL ORDER
05/Dated: 9th September, 2024
1. The instant application has been filed for issuing show cause notice
to respondent as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated for
non-compliance of the direction passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar and Another reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 273.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the
present case has referred to the order passed on the earlier occasion,
whereby and whereunder, notices have been issued to opposite
parties.
3. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf
of the O.P. No. 1, the State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the show
cause has been filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.
4. A serious opposition has been made on behalf of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the capacity of the
learned State Counsel, there cannot be any show cause filed on
behalf of the OP Nos. 2 when the Court has issued notice in order to
provide a chance to her in a proceeding for contempt.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State, upon this, has referred
a judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner, Agra and Ors. vs. Rohtas Singh and Ors., (1998) 1
SCC 349. He has referred the paragraphs 9 and 12 of the said
judgment. For ready reference, the same is being quoted
hereinbelow:
"9. ..It is, therefore, open to the State to nominate its advocates to
appear for its officials in contempt proceedings. In fact, in the
case of the highest law officer of the State -- the Advocate
General, this Court, in the case of T.C. Hingorani v. G.P.
Misra [1967 All WR 662] held that the State Government could
assign to the Advocate General the duty to appear in a contempt
proceeding for a contemner, and the Advocate General was
entitled to so appear. This has been reiterated in Mohd. Iqbal
Khandaly v. Abdul Majid Rather [(1994) 4 SCC 34 : 1994 SCC
(L&S) 849 : (1994) 27 ATC 511] where the Court held that there
was no justification for the Court to direct the counsel for the
appellant, namely the Additional Advocate General, not to
appear for the appellant or to direct that he should instead,
assist the court.
12. The State is, therefore, entitled to authorise a law officer to
appear in cases where the contempt consists of disobedience of
an order of the court by an official or employee of the State. The
further directions given by the High Court that in all such cases
the legal expenses should be borne personally by the alleged
contemner except when he is honourably acquitted also appear
to be unwarranted. The High Court seems to have been moved
into issuing such a direction because of the large number of
contempt cases pending in that Court against the officers of the
State for their failure to carry out the orders of the Court. It is
indeed a disturbing situation. Where the conduct of the official
concerned is contumacious, the Court can direct him to pay costs
personally, if the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
But a general direction of the kind given by the High Court
cannot be sustained."
6. We have gone through the said paragraphs and found therefrom that
the learned counsel appearing for the State can represent the
Opposite Parties upon whom the Court has issued notice for
initiation of proceeding for contempt under the authority of the
State.
7. The show cause has been filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.
8. We have gone through the said show cause found therefrom that
there is no reference/statement of any authority given by the State
to represent the O.P. No. 2.
9. The law which has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Commissioner, Agra and Ors. vs. Rohtas Singh and Ors.
(supra) wherein the State is entitled to authorize State Counsel to
appear in cases where the contempt consists of disobedience of an
order of the Court by an official or employee of the State.
10. The authority does not mean that the State Counsel on being
requested by any of the individual who has been arrayed as the
opposite party will come and file show cause, reason for this is that
the contempt proceeding wherein the individual accountability is to
be assessed by the contempt court before passing an order under
Sections 11 and 12 thereof holding the person concerned guilty of
conduct.
11. The show cause as has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.
2, therefore, according to our considered view, is fit to be rejected,
accordingly the same is hereby rejected.
12. The time is also allowed to O.P. No. 2 to file fresh show cause.
13. The show cause since has been filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 which
has been rejected as above and as such, the same impliedly mean
that she is having the knowledge about the pendency of the instant
contempt proceeding.
14. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
has submitted that the said order will be communicated forthwith to
the Opposite Party No. 2, since, the show cause which has been
rejected as above has been filed by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public
Prosecutor.
15. Accordingly, let this case be listed on 01.10.2024.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Samarth/-
