T.C. Gupta vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 4594 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
              D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13691/2019

T.C. Gupta S/o Shri Gyan Chand, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 107,
Defence Colony, Nandri, Jodhpur- 342015.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
        Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India,
        New Delhi- 110001.
2.      Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Paota, C-Road,
        Jodhpur - 342010.
3.      Zonal Accounts Officer, CBDT, NCR Building, Statue Circle,
        Jaipur- 302005.
4.      Hina P. Shah, Member, CAT Bench, Jodhpur- 342001.
5.      Archana Nigam, Member, CAT Bench, Jodhpur - 342001.
6.      Chairman, Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur-342006.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. T.C. Gupta (Petitioner) through VC
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sunil Bhandari, through VC
                               Mr. Pritam Solanki, through VC



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

                          JUDGEMENT

Judgment pronounced on                 :::             24/03/2022
Judgment reserved on                   :::             18/01/2022



BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13691/2019

1. The petitioner Shri T.C. Gupta, an Advocate enrolled with the

Bar Council of Rajasthan, has approached this Court by way of this

writ petition seeking to assail the following directions contained in

(2 of 8) [CW-13691/2019]

the order dated 23.05.2019 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whilst

dealing with the Original Application No.238/2018 and Misc.

Application No.290/2018:-

"9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, we are of the consensus view that :

(a) Registry of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur shall send a copy of this order alongwith copy of letters received from Mr T.C. Gupta to the Secretary, Bar Council of Rajasthan, Office at Jodhpur High Court Campus in continuation to earlier letters written by the Registry enclosing copy thereof, for taking appropriate action in view of observations made in this order as well as in earlier orders passed by this Tribunal, as per law. Till finalization of appropriate proceedings by the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Registry shall not allow Mr T.C. Gupta, Advocate to represent in any matters pending before this Tribunal or file fresh matters. All such cases wherein Mr T.C. Gupta, Advocate is representing shall remain adjourned sine die.

(b) In the meanwhile, notices be issued to the litigants represented by Mr T.C. Gupta in pending cases, informing them to either appear in person or engage any other advocate of their choice, if desired. In case, the litigants wants to appear in person, registry shall give them suitable date on receipt of simple application by the litigant himself after due verification and list the case before the Court.

(c) Registry shall keep original copies of the letters received from Mr T.C. Gupta, Advocate in safe custody and send copy of the same alongwith certified copy of this order to the Principal Registrar, Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi.

(e) Certified Copy of this order be placed in all pending cases wherein Mr T.C. Gupta, Advocate is representing the litigants."

                                           (3 of 8)              [CW-13691/2019]



2.   The   petitioner   Shri       T.C.     Gupta,     appearing   in   person,

vehemently and fervently urged that the order passed by the

Tribunal is beyond its competence and totally without jurisdiction.

The observations made therein are exaggerated and contrary to

truth. He urged that the Members of the Tribunal had a personal

vendetta against him and that is why, eight cases filed by him

were dismissed on 06.03.2019 and 07.03.2019, with ulterior

motive even when they were not ripe for disposal and the

dismissal was made without providing proper opportunity of being

heard. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the writ

petition and set aside the impugned order.

3. Shri Sunil Bhandari, Advocate representing the Income Tax

Department, a formal party in the proceedings, supported the

order of the Tribunal urging that the cantankerous and unsavoury

behaviour of Shri Gupta has been noticed by the Tribunal as well

as by this Court in more than one cases. Shri Gupta has regularly

indulged in making unwarranted spiteful and unpleasant remarks

on the Members of the Tribunal as well as Hon'ble Judges of this

Court. He thus urged that the impugned order does not suffer

from any infirmity, arbitrariness or illegality whatsoever warranting

interference therein.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the

impugned order.

(4 of 8) [CW-13691/2019]

5. Before appreciating the submissions advanced at bar, the

averments made in paras 'G to J' of the Grounds of the writ

petition, need to be highlighted:-

"G. Because, the CAT Members are there for justice and only justice, they are not expected to be biased, prejudiced, malicious, revengeful and liers for their ulterior motives. They are not expected to stoop to such a low."

H. Because the Advocates are officers of the Court but not slaves of the court as the CAT members have treated the petitioner and are treating the other advocates. The Members call in their chambers to selected advocates and take their help in preparing orders, whereas, they refuse to meet the other advocates in their chamber. This shows their bias, partiality and prejudice in the matter of justice.

I. The Members do not dictate a single order in the court but reserve all the cases for orders, without specifying the date of order, in violation of the Act. This shows their working and attitude to work and justice. The only interference that can be drawn is that of corruption of the Members.

J. That the present order was neither dictated in the court nor pronounced in the court but is a well calculated after thought, false, motivated and malafide."

6. In para 6(19) of the order dated 23.05.2019, the Tribunal

quoted the tenor of the pleadings presented by the petitioner in

another application filed before the Tribunal:-

"...It seems that the order dated 19-3-2015 passed by Shri Govind Mathur and Shri Prakash Gupta, as High Court Judges, to this extent, is perverse, absurd, senseless, without application of mind and contemptuous as per definition of contempt given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

(5 of 8) [CW-13691/2019]

A bare perusal of the above para of pleadings filed by the

petitioner under his own signatures, clearly indicates that the

petitioner has made contemptuous insinuations in reference to the

order passed by Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court. The use

of the words 'absurd', 'senseless' and 'contemptuous' for a

Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court that too by

naming the Hon'ble Judges, is unpardonable. The pleadings,

referred to supra, attributed to the petitioner in Review Application

No.290/00006/2017 in O.A. No.290/00327/2015 filed before the

Tribunal, clearly demonstrates his cantankerous and disruptive

approach towards the Courts. He has no qualms in using insulting

language for Courts and Judges and has scant regard for

maintaining decorum which is a bare expectation from every

lawyer. He has been regularly indulging in making unfounded,

absurd and unwarranted allegations against the learned Members

of the Tribunal. Baseless allegations have been levelled by Shri

Gupta in the petition that the Members called selected Advocates

in their chambers and take their help in preparing the orders

whereas, they refuse to meet other Advocates. At Ground 'G', it

has been mentioned that the Members of the Tribunal are

revengeful and liars. This foul and filthy language used by the

petitioner, an Advocate, who is supposed to act as an officer of the

Court, clearly reflects his perverted and distorted mentality. This

Court is also cognizant of the fact that the petitioner has been

filing petitions in this Court without proper authorization.

Reference in this regard may be had to the following cases:

"(i). D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3791/2019 titled as Income Tax Contingent Employee's Union & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (withdrawn on 21.05.2019 and

(6 of 8) [CW-13691/2019]

(ii). D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3789/2019 titled as Income Tax Contingent Employee's Union vs. Union of India & Ors. (withdrawn on 15.07.2019."

Both the petitions came to be withdrawn for this reason

alone. Reference in this regard may also be had to the Judgment

dated 17.11.2021 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.2893/2019 (Income Tax Contingent Union &

Anr. vs. A.N. Jha & Anr. wherein, it was observed:

"Rule 7 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rule of Practice, 1993 is reproduced here under:-

"Production of authorisation for and on behalf of an Association :- Where an application/pleading or other proceeding purported to be filed is by an Association, the person, or persons who sign/(s)/verify (ies) the same shall produce along with such application, etc., for verification by the Registry, a true copy of the resolution of the Association empowering such persons(s) to do so: Provided the Registrar may at any time call upon the party to produce such further materials as he deems fit for satisfying himself about due authorisaton."

In light of the preliminary objections raised by the respondent counsel pertaining to maintainability of the present petition for lack of the proper authorization and following the dictum of this Court in DBCWP No. 3798/2019, whereby in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1993, proper authorization/resolution is mandatorily required.

On analysis of Rule 7 and the petitioner's failing in furnishing valid resolution/authorization, we are of the view that the present petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed."

Even while arguing the present writ petition, the petitioner

was unrepentful for his vexatious conduct. He made no effort

whatsoever to offer any kind of apology. Regular use of

intemperate language has been attributed to him by the Members

(7 of 8) [CW-13691/2019]

of the Tribunal. When an Advocate indulges in making these kinds

of caustic remarks and foul language for the Hon'ble Judges of this

Court and Presiding Officers of Tribunal, it amounts to a gross

contempt as the use of insulting words, clearly tarnishes the

reputation and lowers dignity of the Judicial Institutions including

the High Court.

7. However, considered in light of the law as laid down by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in numerous Judgments including R.

Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court

of Judicature at Madras reported in AIR 2019 SC 849,

debarment from practice of an Advocate cannot be ordered until

and unless the Advocate is prosecuted for contempt. Hence, the

impugned directions made in the order dated 23.05.2019, for the

present, deserve to be deferred.

Considering the gross misconduct of the petitioner in making

the above referred unsavoury, depraved and contemptuous

remarks in reference to the Judgment of a Division Bench of this

Court in Review Application No.290/00006/2017 in O.A.

No.290/00327/2015 filed before the Tribunal by naming the

Hon'ble Judges and so also against the Members of the Tribunal,

we exercise suo-moto powers under Article 215 of the Constitution

of India and direct registration of Contempt proceedings against

the petitioner. The original file of Review Application

No.290/00006/2017 in O.A. No.290/00327/2015 filed before the

Tribunal wherein, the pleadings referred to at para No.5 of the

order have been reproduced, shall be summoned from the learned

Tribunal and will be tagged with the contempt proceedings which

(8 of 8) [CW-13691/2019]

shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary

directions.

The writ petition is admitted.

Admit. Issue notice.

D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 13791/2019

In view of the discussion made in the order whereby the writ

petition is admitted, the direction given by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur restraining the petitioner from

appearing before it, is hereby stayed.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

Tikam Daiya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)