Gujarat High Court
V.Kurein vs K. Pratap Reddy & Ors. - Opponent(S) on 11 October, 2005
Author: R.S.Garg
Bench: R.S.Garg
MCA/1979/2005 1/7 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISCELLLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1979 OF 2005
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1147 OF 2005
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6456 OF 2005
==============================================================
V.KUREIN - Applicant(s)
Versus
K. PRATAP REDDY & ORS. - Opponent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance :
M/S.NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Applicant(s).
MR DC DAVE for Opponent(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 2 - 15.
=====================================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA
Date : 11/10/2005
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG)
1. The Registry of this Court, without understanding the legal position and even without going through the order dated 20.09.2005 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal (which was specially assigned to us) or Order dated 28 th September 2005, interpreted both the orders in a crude manner and, without appreciating the import and effect of two orders, placed the matter before the Honourable the Chief Justice, seeking a direction that the contempt matters be listed before the appropriate Bench.
2. The Honourable the Chief Justice observed that the MCA/1979/2005 2/7 ORDER matter be placed before the Division Bench, which has been assigned the roster to hear the matters. Thereafter, the Registry put another Note dated 4th October, 2005 before the Honourable the Chief Justice, informing him that the matter being filed by M/s.Nanavati Associates, the same cannot be placed before Honourable M/s.Justice K.R.Vyas and Akshay H.Mehta. It was also brought to the notice of the Honourable the Chief Justice that Honourable M/s. Justice G.S. Singhvi and P.B.Majmudar, on 31st August, 2005, observed that the matter be placed before the Bench to which Honourable Mr.Justice P.B.Majmudar was not a Member. The Honourable the Chief Justice, accordingly, directed that the matter be placed before Court No.16. When the matter was placed before Court No.16 i.e. Division Bench consisting of Honourable Mr.Justice D.A.Mehta and Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani, on 5th October, 2005, they ordered that the Registry should obtain further necessary orders from the Honourable the Chief Justice for segregation of the proceedings as, in any event, Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1979 of 2005 wherein a clarification of the earlier judgement dated 20th September, 2005 (in Letters Patent Appeal No.1147 of 2005) was sought, cannot be heard by Court No.16 in view of the availability of the Bench consisting of us.
3. The Registry again placed a Note dated 7 th October, 2005 before the Honourable the Chief Justice, observing that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench consisting of MCA/1979/2005 3/7 ORDER Honourable Mr.Justice D.A. Mehta and Honourable Ms.Justice H.N. Devani, appropriate orders regarding segregation of the proceedings be made. The Honourable the Chief Justice accepted the proposal. The matter has been placed before us for disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1979 of 2005 wherein the applicants, original appellants, are seeking certain clarifications.
4. The Registry of this Court, especially, the Section Officer and the Additional Registrar (Judicial), who are supposed to know the law and submit the cases before the Honourable the Chief Justice for obtaining approval, appear to not understand any law. It is most unfortunate that every time reliance is placed upon a Division Bench's judgement of this Court in the matter of Suo Motu vs. S.J.Gaekwad, Registrar, Gujarat High Court, [2001 (1) GLR 752].
5. In the matter of S.J.Gaekwad, Registrar (supra), proceedings were initiated by the learned single Judge on the ground that on 27th December, 2000, the learned single Judge had directed to issue a notice for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent-Registrar; the learned single Judge had observed that in spite of directions dated 8th February, 2000, the Registrar had not taken care to apprise the Court about the action initiated by him and further proceedings; thereafter, the matter was assigned to the Court, which had the roster to hear the contempt matters for admission MCA/1979/2005 4/7 ORDER and final hearing as per the List of Sitting, commencing from 8th January, 2001 to 11th March, 2001. It is to be noted that under the High Court Rules, all the contempt matters are to be heard by a Division Bench and even in a case where the learned single Judge initiates the contempt proceedings, then too, the matter will have to be heard by a Division Bench. In cases where the learned single Judge initiates the proceedings, he himself cannot finally dispose of the proceedings in the contempt jurisdiction, the matter will have to be listed before the appropriate Bench hearing the civil or contempt matters. Paragraph-4 of the said judgement does not decide any question of law, but, simply gives details of the facts.
6. The said judgement nowhere says that if a Division Bench takes suo motu action against anybody, then too, the matter is to be heard by some other Bench.
7. Of late, we had found that in the matters of criminal contempt or the proceedings, which could be drawn under Section-14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Registry, misinterpreting the above referred judgement, was obtaining the permission from the Honourable the Chief Justice to place the matter before the Court having jurisdiction. Some matters were placed before a Division Bench, which had ordinary jurisdiction in the matter, but, the said Bench refused to hear the matters and said that the matters are to be listed before the Court, which had taken suo motu action under Section-14 of MCA/1979/2005 5/7 ORDER the Act. Such matters again came before us.
8. We do not know that for what particular reasons, the Additional Registrar (Judicial) or the Section Officer are trying to fetter with the authority of the Court by making absurd proposals and keeping the Honourable the Chief Justice in dark. The Honourable the Chief Justice is required to be informed by the Registry that in a particular matter, the Court had taken suo motu action and as the matter is intrinsically connected with the main matter, such matters cannot be segregated. The Division Bench consisting of Honourable Mr.Justice D.A.Mehta and Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani simply accepted the order of allotment of the case to their Court and observed that the matters relating to clarification are to be heard by the Bench consisting of us and orders for segregation of the proceedings are required to be obtained. The predicament of the said Division Bench is taken to be a direction-cum-order of the said Division Bench.
9. We are forced to say that the Registry has not appreciated our Orders dated 20th September, 2005 and 28th September, 2005. Letters Patent Appeal No.1197 of 2005 was disposed of with the consent of the parties with a direction that the judgement of the learned single Judge shall stand set aside; the appellants had assured the Court and the original petitioner had accepted that till the final disposal of Special Civil Application No.6456 of 2005, the original petitioner MCA/1979/2005 6/7 ORDER shall be allowed to occupy the premises, which were alloted to him, and no coercive action shall be taken against him; the Court also observed that the original petitioner shall also be allowed to have other perquisites, which he was enjoying before his termination from the Office of the Director. The complaint of the original appellants - present applicants was that despite such directions of this Court, the original petitioner was asserting his authority as a Director. Whether he was entitled to assert his authority as a Director or not is a question relating to the interpretation of the earlier order and any violation of the said original order would amount to contempt of the lawful authority of this Court. If we come to a conclusion that the order was, in fact, in favour of the original petitioner, then, we must have to hold that no contempt is made out and if we hold that the earlier order means what is being interpreted by the present applicants, then, we have to punish the original petitioner for committing contempt. The proceedings of contempt are not drawn in air, those are dependent upon certain facts and if those facts are not placed before the other Division Bench, then, some wrong order is likely to be passed.
10. The Registry is hereby directed to submit its explanation as to why the permission of the Honourable the Chief Justice was sought in the matter when the Court had taken suo motu action. As the contempt matter has already been alloted to another Bench, we would simply say and that too, on MCA/1979/2005 7/7 ORDER judicial side that the matter could not be withdrawn by an administrative order from our Court on misinterpretation of a judgement. If the Honourable the Chief Justice was of the opinion that for some other reason, the matters were not to be heard by us, then, he could certainly withdraw the matters, but, not on the Note made by the Registry. Let this order be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice. The matter be placed before us on 18th October, 2005.
[R.S.Garg, J.] [K.M. Mehta, J.] kamlesh*