Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 9 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Contempt (Civil) Case No. 527 of 2022
----------
Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav, aged about 59 years, son
of Anandi Yadav, resident of Netaji Subhash Colony, P.O. & P.S.
Borio (Jirwabari) O.P, District Sahibganj.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of
Home, Jail & Disaster having office at Project Bhawan Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa P.S. Jagannathpur District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. Anuranjan Kispotta, son of not known to the petitioner, working
for gain as Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S.
Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand).
3. Arbind Kumar Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, the then
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajmahal , currently posted as
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kanke
Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi University. P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
4. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, working for
gain as Inspector, Rajmahal, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj
(Jharkhand).
5. Sandip Prasad Verma, son of not known to the petitioner, working
for gain as Sub-Inspector, Sahibganj at Rajmahal
6. Pranit Patel, aged about 28 years, son of Sarbind Prasad, working
for gain as Sub-Inspector-cum-Officer-in-charge, Rajmahal Police
Station office, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand).
... ... Opp. Parties
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the OP-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III
For the OP Nos. 4, 5 & 6 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Pushpanjali Kumari, Advocate
----------------------------
ORAL ORDER
23/Dated: 09th September, 2024
1. The instant application has been filed against the Opposite Party No.
2 to 6 for initiation of proceeding due to 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 O.P. Nos. 2 to
6.
3. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III has appeared on behalf of the O.P.
No. 1, the State of Jharkhand, who is represented through its
Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster. He has submitted
that the show cause has been filed on behalf of the OP Nos. 2 also.
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 them 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 paragraph 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. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama to
represent the O.P. Nos. 4, 5 and 6. He has sought for three weeks'
time to file show cause.
13. There is no appearance on behalf of O.P. No. 3. It appears from the
office note dated 06.08.2024 that the O.P. No. 3 has been reported
that the said opp. Party does not work anymore at the given address.
14. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is the accountability of
O.P. No. 1, the State of Jharkhand, to secure the appearance of O.P.
No. 3 because at the time when he was discharging his duty in the
capacity of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajmahal and
subsequent thereto he had been posted as Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau and as such being the public servant
even if as per the Service Report, notice to Respondent No. 3 could
not be served, as the said respondent does not work anymore at the
given address.
15. Accordingly, the Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster is to
ensure his appearance on or before the next date of hearing.
16. The time is also allowed to O.P. No. 2 to file fresh show cause.
17. 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 he is having the knowledge about the pendency of the instant
contempt proceeding.
18. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel 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. Manoj Kumar, learned State Counsel.
19. Accordingly, let this case be listed on 01.10.2024.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Samarth/-
