Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Tufan Singh Patle on 28 February, 2013
M.C.C. No.239/2008
28.02.2013
Shri Sanjay Roy, Panel Lawyer, for the applicants.
Shri S.S. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent.
This application is filed for recall/modification of order dated 09.05.2007 in Contempt Petition No.932/2006 on the premises that the contempt case was finally disposed of in view of a letter of Chief Minister dated 26.07.2006 while aforesaid letter was a fake one and on the basis of the alleged letter, the matter could not have been disposed of finally.
The application is also barred by limitation, so the applicants have filed another application I.A. No.1136/2008 seeking condonation of delay in filing this M.C.C. Though the prayer is opposed vehemently by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, but considering the peculiar facts of the case, prayer is allowed. Delay is condoned.
Heard on M.C.C. No.239/2008.
Respondent, by filing written objections, have stated that the applicants have to approach to the Apex Court, if they were of the opinion that the order dated 09.05.2007 passed in Contempt Petition No.932/2006, was not correct. It is also submitted by Shri Tiwari that this Court has no authority to recall the order and only recourse is by way of filing an S.L.P. before the Apex Court.
To appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be appropriate if the order dated 09.05.2007 is reproduced, which reads thus:-
"09-05-2007.
Shri S.S. Tiwari for the applicant. This is a contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the order passed by this court has not been complied with.
It appears that during the pendency of the said contempt petition, a letter has been issued by the Chief Minister on 26-07-2006 to look into the matter of the applicant and other such Assistant Teachers. Copy of the letter has been filed as Annexure C-8.
In view of this letter, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that presently he does not press this application for contempt, but reserves his right to do so, in case no appropriate action is taken by the respondents within a reasonable time.
Prayer appears to be reasonable, hence accepted.
Contempt petition is permitted to be withdrawn, but with liberty as mentioned hereinabove.
This contempt petition stands finally disposed of."
From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that on the basis of a letter of Chief Minister dated 26.07.2006, who had assured to look into the matter, the contempt petition was disposed of, while the contention of the applicants before this Court is that no such letter was issued by the Chief Minister and the letter produced before this Court, was fake one.
In view of the contention of the applicants, the objections of the respondent are misconceived.
This Court is having wide power to modify, recall or to set aside any order, if it requires for dispensation of justice.
In the present case, the contention of the applicants is that the matter was disposed of in view of letter dated 26.07.2006 of the Chief Minister, while it was a fake one, we find that the interest of justice shall meet, if the aforesaid order is recalled and the matter is heard finally. During the course of hearing of contempt petition, this question can be examined that the letter is genuine or not, and if it is found that the aforesaid letter is fake one, then the consequence shall follow.
In view of the aforesaid, we recall order dated 09.05.2007 passed in Contempt Petition No.932/2006 and direct office to list Contempt Petition No.932/2006 for hearing in the next week.
Considering the facts of the case, it is directed that the cost of this M.C.C. shall be subject to decision in Contempt Petition No.932/2006.
M.C.C. is finally disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
Judge Judge
psm