Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paras Saklecha vs Shri Justice A.M. Khanvilkar on 5 November, 2015
CONC-1902-2015
(PARAS SAKLECHA Vs SHRI JUSTICE A.M. KHANVILKAR)
05-11-2015
Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar for the applicant.
Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Advocate General. Heard on I.A.No.14623/2015, an application filed for recall of an order passed by us on 28.10.2015.
The recall is sought for on three grounds, namely :-
(i) This Court has directed for seeking assistance of the learned Advocate General. It is said that as notice on the application for contempt has not been issued, at this stage in accordance with the High Court Rules, governing hearing of the criminal contempt petition, the assistance of learned Advocate General is not necessary.
(ii) The Court has granted permission to all the advocates, who were present at the time of hearing of the main case, to assist the Court at the time of hearing. This is not proper as not warranted, at this stage when the contempt petition is yet to be entertained.
(iii) The order has been passed prohibiting the media from reporting about the matter, which is not proper, as it violates the right available to the applicant under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
2. That apart, placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asit Kumar Kar Vs. State of West Bengan & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 703, a prayer is made to say that in passing of the order on 28.10.2015, the principle of natural justice has been violated, hence, the order be recalled, as it is passed behind the back of the applicant and without granting him any opportunity to give his say.
3. Finally, it was tried to be indicated that one of us (K.K.Trivedi, J) was a member of the bench, which heard the matter on 15 th of October, 2015 and, therefore, he should recuse himself from the case.
4. On due consideration, we are of the view that as far as the discretion exercised by us in seeking assistance of the learned Advocate General is concerned, it's our prerogative and if the Court has sought assistance of the learned Advocate General at the time of hearing, the applicant cannot have any grievance with regard to the same, as it does not cause any prejudice to him and, therefore, on such ground, we see no reason to recall the order.
5. As far as the permission to all the advocates present at the time of hearing of the main case to assist this Court is concerned, to that extent, the prayer is allowed. The order passed and the liberty granted to all the advocates present at the time of hearing of the main case to assist this Court is recalled.
6. As far as the the order restraining the media is concerned, the media reports and all other material which was published immediately after filing of the contempt petition were brought to our notice by the registry, we went through the reports as they appeared in the media and we found that same was not in the right spirit and was not reflecting the correct factual position and were also not in the interest of justice. Taking into consideration all aspects, we had taken a conscious decision to prevent the media from reporting the matter without our permission and, therefore, we see no reason to recall this part of the order. The prayer in this regard is rejected.
7. As far as the reliance made on the case of the Asit Kumar Kar (supra) is concerned, the said case will not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. There is no question of violation of principle of nature justice in passing of the two orders with regard to assistance of the learned Advocate General and preventing the media from reporting the matter. These orders have been passed by us exercising discretion and prerogative jurisdiction available to us in the matter and looking to various circumstances that were available on record, for the said purpose, compliance of the principle of natural justice or hearing to the applicant was not required. It was the discretion exercised by us, therefore, the law laid down in the case of Asit Kumar Kar (supra) does not apply.
8. As far as the recusal of justice Shri K.K.Trivedi is concerned, Justice Trivedi invites attention to the principle laid down in the case of Sahara India Real Estate Vs. Securities & Exchange, Board of India & Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 603 in paragraph-11 thereof and the principle laid down in the case of the R.K.Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106, the observations made by Shri Justice Manmohan Sarin reproduced in paragraph-262, 263 & 264 and the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Anand (supra) and states that no case is made out for his recusal.
9. Accordingly, I.A.No.14623/2015 is disposed of in terms as indicated herein above. Shri Mathur is now requested to address us on the question of admission.
10. Shri Mathur wants time to argue on the question of admission.
11. We grant him two weeks' time for the said purpose.
List the matter on 1st of December, 2015 as agreed to by Shri Mathur and the learned Advocate General.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (KESHAV KUMAR TRIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE