Allahabad High Court
Yashpal Bhatia vs Smt. Rajni Singh, Additional District ... on 31 July, 2019
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3447 of 2019 Applicant :- Yashpal Bhatia Opposite Party :- Smt. Rajni Singh, Additional District Judge Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
Present contempt application has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 06.7.2018 passed by this Court on Restoration Application No.4 of 2018 filed in Writ C No.15602 of 1992 (R.S. Bhatia vs. B.N. Gupta and others).
It appears from the record that the applicant had filed the aforesaid writ petition in which an interim order was passed on 06.5.1992, staying the further proceedings in S.C.C. Revision No.50 of 1990 (R.S. Bhatia vbs. B.N. Gupta) pending in the Court of III Addl. District Judge, Rampur until further order of this Court. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 23.1.2018 and on the said date, it was dismissed for want of prosecution with following observations:-
"List revised.
No one appear for the petitioner.
The order sheet would reflect that adjournment is being sought on behalf of the petitioner.
Matter is of 1992, whereby, original court proceeding has been stayed.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution.
Registrar General to inform the court below of the order. Court below to proceed in accordance with law.
The order has been passed in the presence of Sri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent."
Thereafter, the recall application No.4 of 2018 was filed and the same was allowed by this Court on 6.7.2018 with following observations:-
"Ref : Civil Misc. Restoration Application 4 of 2018)
1. This is an application seeking recall of order dated 23.1.2018 dismissing the appeal in default.
2. Subject to a token cost of Rs.100/- the order dated 23.1.2018 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to file.
3. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
4. List the writ petition on 12.7.2018 for final disposal."
Meanwhile, the Presiding Officer has proceeded in the matter and decided the issue on merits of the case.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as respectfully considered the judgment dated 28.3.2018 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal Nos.1375-1376 of 2013, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court issued following directions:-
"35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.
36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.
37. The High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage."
Similar view has also been taken by this Court in its order dated 28.03.2019 in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1626 of 2019 (Sri Niwas Daga v. Tiwashi Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate), the operative portion of which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
"...................This Court in contempt jurisdiction has been receiving repeated petitions making allegations against the presiding officers of trial courts where the trial court has proceeded with the trial in terms of Asian Resurfacing. In my opinion, the contempt petition against the presiding officers of trial court on having proceeded in terms of Asian Resurfacing after lapse of six months, upon having ignored the interim stay, order would not be maintainable.
The principles that emerge from the mandate of Asian Resurfacing can be summed up as follows:
(i) The trial court and the Superior Court is bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing;
(ii) It is incumbent upon the party in whose favour the stay order is operating to approach the Superior Court/High Court, as the case may be, and obtain a speaking order in terms of Asian Resurfacing;
(iii) In absence of a speaking stay order after a lapse of six months from the date of judgment rendered in Asian Resurfacing or from the date of the stay order whichever is later would not bind the trial court;
(iv) Asian Resurfacing is judgment in rem; the aggrieved litigating party is bound to obtain a fresh speaking stay order in terms of the Supreme Court judgment and not wait until the trial resumes after six months;
(v) Non speaking order extending the stay, though being an order of the Superior Court/High Court, would not bind the trial court in view of the law declared in Asian Resurfacing;
(vi) All interim orders staying the trial would stand automatically vacated after lapse of six months unless extended by a speaking order in exceptional case;
(vii) Where the trial court has proceeded with the trial following Asian Resurfacing/High Court Circular, that would not preclude the aggrieved party to the trial to obtain a fresh speaking stay order from the Superior Court/High Court.
In the circumstances, the contempt petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of the petition shall not preclude the applicant from approaching the Court and obtaining appropriate order on a fresh stay application in terms of Asian Resurfacing.
Registrar General to place the order before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for appropriate orders on the administrative side."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that once this Court vide its order dated 6.5.1992 stayed the further proceedings of S.C.C. Revision No.50 of 1990 until further orders; thereafter the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 23.1.2018 and since then the applicant has not moved any application for restoring the interim order, then in absence of any positive direction the Presiding Officer has not erred in law in deciding the aforesaid SCC Revision and he has rightly proceeded in view of the law laid down in Asian Resurfacing (Supra).
In view of above, the contempt application being devoid of merit is dismissed.Notices, if any, stand discharged.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 RKP