Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suo Moto vs T.C. Gupta on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Writ Contempt No. 491/2022
Suo Moto
----Petitioner
Versus
T.C. Gupta S/o Shri Gyan Chand, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 107,
Defence Colony, Nandri, Jodhpur 342015.
----Respondent
Connected With
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, Statute 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, contemnor through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari
Mr. Pritam Solanki
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
ORDER
Order pronounced on ::: 31/08/2022
Order reserved on ::: _02/08/2022
(Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 10:53:30 PM)
(2 of 6) [WCP-491/2022]
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)
(In D.B. Writ Contempt No. 491/2022) The petitioner herein is a practicing advocate. He filed an Original Application (No.290/2018) on behalf of one Shri K.G.Joshi and whilst the matter was taken up by the Tribunal on 23.05.2019, the petitioner crossed all limits of decency and appropriate behaviour and started hurling insinuations on the learned members of the Tribunal upon which, the order dated 23.05.2019 came to be passed with the following directions:-
"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 (Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 10:53:30 PM) (3 of 6) [WCP-491/2022] 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."
The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.13691/2019. While arguing the writ petition for admission, the petitioner urged that the Tribunal was not competent to pass an order restraining him from practicing. He urged that the order passed by the Tribunal, apart from being vitiated on account of being without jurisdiction and also that the Members of the Tribunal are biased against him and that is why the impugned order has been passed infringing his fundamental right to practice in the tribunal.
Considering the submissions made by the petitioner in light of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of R. Muthukrishnan vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras reported in AIR 2019 SC 849, the writ petition was admitted and the direction given by the learned Tribunal restraining the petitioner from appearing before it was stayed by order dated 24.03.2022. However simultaneously, this Court exercised suo-moto powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and directed registration of contempt (Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 10:53:30 PM) (4 of 6) [WCP-491/2022] proceedings against the petitioner advocate. The order dated 24.03.2022 is self-contained for the reasons behind registration the contempt.
On the basis of the said direction, the contempt petition (No.491/2022) has been registered and cognizance was taken against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to remain present in the Court on 02.08.2022. He appeared in person and was heard in the contempt petition and final arguments were heard in the writ petition as well.
The petitioner has filed an application tendering unconditional apology in the contempt petition and orally submitted that he is nearly 67 years of age and has virtually given up practice in the Courts of law and thus, this Court may take a lenient view of the matter.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled by the petitioner in the original application filed by him in the Tribunal, extracts whereof have been reproduced in the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by this Court and so also the substance of allegations attributed to him by the learned Members of the Tribunal in the order dated 23.05.2019 passed by the Tribunal, we are of the firm view that the conduct of the petitioner advocate is reprehensible and contemnous. By no stretch of imagination, contemnous acts of the petitioner be condoned. He has filed pleadings before the Tribunal in reference to an order dated 19.03.2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court by naming the (Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 10:53:30 PM) (5 of 6) [WCP-491/2022] Hon'ble Judges and has branded the order to be perverse, absurd, senseless, without application of mind and contemptuous as per the definition of contempt given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Apparently thus, the petitioner has no respect for the sanctity of the Court. By using such intemperate demeaning language, the petitioner has scandalized and lowered this Court's dignity. By quoting the names of Hon'ble Judges in the pleadings filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal and branding the judgment to be absurd, senseless and contemnous, the petitioner has committed gross contempt of this Court. We are constrained to make the above observations keeping in view the fact that this is not the only instance of the petitioner indulging into these kinds of activities. We may state here that in D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.159/2021 (Income Tax Contingent Employees Union & Anr. vs A.N. Jha & Anr.), the petitioner made disparaging personal remarks against the Judges who passed the order dated 17.11.2021. When he was confronted with these allegations, he candidly conceded that he had made a mistake and pleaded that he may be allowed to withdraw the review application which was dismissed as such on 02.08.2022.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the petitioner has committed gross contempt of this Court as well as of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. We, therefore hold him guilty of contempt.
The matter shall be re-notified on 2 nd September, 2022 for hearing the petitioner on the aspect of sentence. (Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 10:53:30 PM)
(6 of 6) [WCP-491/2022] (In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13691/2019) List along with D.B. Writ Contempt No.491/2022 on 02.09.2022.
(FARJAND ALI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Sudhir Asopa/-
(Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 10:53:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)