Gujarat High Court
Suo Motu vs Devesh Bhatt on 19 July, 2016
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt, A.Y. Kogje
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT) NO. 20516 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11750 of 2008
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 869 of 2015
In
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5498 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21776 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 24941 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 883 of 2016
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4243 of 2016
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14711 of 2013
In
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11750 of 2008
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5199 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5200 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5201 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5202 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5203 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5204 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5205 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5206 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5207 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5208 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5209 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6030 of 2011
Page 1 of 44
HC-NIC Page 1 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8947 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10087 of 2012
In
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8947 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9165 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9166 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9167 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9168 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9169 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17445 of 2013
In
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11750 of 2008
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18216 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1900 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19971 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20723 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 315 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2937 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2330 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19491 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17185 of 2016
=======================================================================
SUO MOTU....Applicant(s)
Versus
DEVESH BHATT....Respondent(s)
=======================================================================
Appearance:
SUO MOTU for the Applicant(s) No. 1
Page 2 of 44
HC-NIC Page 2 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 19/07/2016
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT)
1. Criminal Misc.Application (for contempt of Court) No.20516 of 2014 is arising out of letter addressed by the respondent on July 25, 2014 for taking suitable criminal departmental and contempt of Court action against the sitting Judge of this Court. The matter was considered by the Standing Committee of this Court and the Standing Committee in its meeting dated 16.0-9.2013 decided as under:-
"Considered. All these types of applications made by Mr.Devesh Bhatt, Advocate of Ahmedabad be placed before the Bench dealing with contempt matters, against Mr.Devesh Bhatt, by giving appropriate note."
1.1 Accordingly, the matter was registered and numbered as Criminal Misc.Application (for contempt of Court) No.20516 of 2014 and placed before the Bench taking up contempt matters. On 12.12.2014, one of the Members of the Bench said 'not before this Court'.
Thereafter, the matter was listed on 15.01.2015, wherein the Court issued notice to the respondent making it Page 3 of 44 HC-NIC Page 3 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER returnable on 26.02.2015. On 30.07.2015, the matter was required to be adjourned. On 01.09.2015, the Court issued fresh notice to respondent, which was made returnable on 12.10.2015. On 08.03.2016, the Court passed following order:-
"None is present for the respondent. Ld. P.P. has submitted that necessary steps will be taken for seeing to it that on the next date, the matter may not be adjourned for want of presence of the respondent. SO to 15.3.2015."
1.2 On 28.04.2016, the Court had to pass following order:-
"Fresh NOTICE to the unserved respondents making it returnable on 27th JUNE, 2016. Registry is directed to serve the concerned respondents through the local Police Station in all the matters.
Direct Service is permitted."
1.3 As the respondent had been named in number of matters under the Contempt of Courts Act, they were always placed together on the Board along with Criminal Misc.Application (for contempt of Court) No.20516 of 2014, in which for the first time notice had been issued on 15.01.2015. Thereafter, along with this matter, all other matters appear to have been listed wherein the present respondent is named as the respondent-contemnor.
Page 4 of 44
HC-NIC Page 4 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
1.4 On 07.04.2016, the Court passed following order
as one of the Members of the Bench said 'not before me':-
"Let the matters receive consideration from any other Bench, wherein one of us (B.N. Karia, J.) is not a party. Not before this Court. Office is directed to place copy of this order in each matter."
1.5 On 27.06.2016, following order was passed recording that service of the notice is required to be ascertained before passing any further orders:-
"The matters are listed. None is present for the respondent. There appears to be an affidavit of the concerned officer who has served the copy. However, in order to ascertain actual service and in order to afford an opportunity to the respondent, these matters are ordered to be kept on 29.06.016."
1.6 On 29.06.2016, when this matter along with other matters was called out, the Court had to pass following order:-
"In this group of matters, this Court had to pass an order on 28.04.2016, which read as under:
Fresh NOTICE to the unserved respondents making it returnable on 27th JUNE, 2016.
Registry is directed to serve
Page 5 of 44
HC-NIC Page 5 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
the concerned respondents
through the local Police
Station in all the matters.
Direct Service is permitted.
Accordingly, the matters were listed on
27.06.2016 and on 27.06.2016, the Court had to pass the following order:
The matters are listed. None is present for the respondent. There appears to be an affidavit of the concerned officer who has served the copy. However, in order to ascertain actual service and in order to afford and opportunity to the respondent, these matters are ordered to be kept on 29.06.2016.
Today also none is present. In view thereof, we are constrained to issue direction for issuance of bailable warrant for procuring the presence of the respondent before the Court.
The matters are ordered to be fixed on 19.07.2016. The bailable warrant be issued against the respondent in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, so as to procure the presence of the respondent on the next date i.e. on 19.07.2016.
Office is directed to place copy of this order in each matter."
2. After noticing in this matter that there is a Page 6 of 44 HC-NIC Page 6 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER consistent attempt on the part of the respondent to avoid hearing of the proceedings as he has not remained present despite there being fresh notices and service of those notices, the Court had to issue bailable warrant to procure presence of the respondent so far as this matter is concerned and the bailable warrant was made returnable on 19.07.2106, i.e. today. Other matters were also listed along with this matter.
3. Today, Registry of this Court has received letter dated July 15, 2016 addressed by the respondent to the Registrar of City Sessions Court and Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, inter alia contending that the respondent is in fact on bail under order dated 09.05.2014 in proceedings of Criminal Misc.Application No.11750 of 2008 and allied matters and the said bail is not cancelled till date and it was contended in this letter that therefore, issuance of bailable warrant was contrary to the order of this Court on 09.05.2014.
4. It is required to be noted that today the matter was called twice and on both the occasions, respondent has not remained present. The letter dated July 15, 2016 which is addressed to the Registrar of City Sessions Court and Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat clearly indicates that he is having knowledge that the matters are kept today.
Page 7 of 44
HC-NIC Page 7 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record extract of the register duly signed by Police Inspector, Gujarat University Police Station indicating that the bailable warrant is served upon the respondent. The City Sessions Court has also placed on record report, which reads as under:-
"(1) It is hereby certified that the order of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad is shown to the H.H.J. Addl. Sessions Judge of this Court.
(2) Certified that, as per the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Misc.Application (For Contempt of Court) No.20516/2014, Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.10,000/- has been issued against Respondent Devesh Bhatt and sent for service upon the accused through the Police Inspector, Gujarat University Police Station, Ahmedabad City vide this office J.No.2229/2016 Dated 11.07.2016.
As per report of the Police Inspector, Gujarat University Police Station, vide it's J.No.2407/16 dated 15.07.2016, B/W is duly served upon the Respondents and the respondent has furnished bail-bonds before the police station.
(3) Bailable warrant has been served, but Devesh Bhatt is not furnished bail bond before this court till today, i.e. 18.07.2016.
Page 8 of 44
HC-NIC Page 8 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
(4) A note to this effect has been made in the
relevant case register.
(5) An original H.C. Writ (Warrant of Arrest)
is enclosed herewith."
6. At this stage, it would not be out of place to refer to the earlier orders indicating consistent approach of the respondent in dodging the hearing of these matters. The first matter in this group being Criminal Misc.Application No.11750 of 2008 is already admitted as way back on 18.08.2009, Division Bench of this Court had issued Rule. On 20.09.2010, the Bench had to record that the respondent had not remained present on earlier occasion on 13.09.2010. On 20.09.2010, the matter was adjourned to 28.09.2010. On 07.02.2010, the Court passed following order:-
"None present, S.O. to 9th February 2011. Learned counsel, Mr.Asim Pandya, who was present in the Court, was requested to assist the Court. He needed time to study the papers."
6.1 On 09.02.2010, the Court passed following order:-
"Learned counsel Mr.Asim Pandya has already been requested to assist the Court. His name may be shown as amicus curiae appointed for assisting the Court. Office is directed to Page 9 of 44 HC-NIC Page 9 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER permit inspection of papers of this matter by learned counsel Mr.Pandya and also furnish copies of any part of the record without charging any fees. Hearing of the matter is adjourned to 15.02.2011 at the request of Mr.Pandya."
6.2 On 22.02.2011, the Court passed following order:-
"1. The submission of the office pursuant to our previous order dated 15.2.2011 is accepted and approved. In spite of the matter being listed 24 times and notices having been issued and served upon the main respondent, i.e. learned counsel Mr.Devesh Bhatt, no one is present today. According to the remarks on the cause- list, the notice issued to Shri R.H.Patel pursuant to previous order dated 18.11.2010, is not served in spite of his complete address having been mentioned in the said order.
2. Learned counsel Mr.Asim Pandya, appearing as amicus curiae, submitted that it was a fit case for, and circumstances have warranted issuance of warrant for arrest and production before this Court of the respondent advocate and Shri R.H.Patel, on whose instructions learned advocate is stated to have issued highly objectionable letters.
3. Therefore, at this stage bailable warrants Page 10 of 44 HC-NIC Page 10 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) are ordered to be issued against the respondent learned advocate Mr.Devesh Bhatt and his client Shri R.H.Patel, whose address is mentioned in the previous order, for producing them before this Court on 7.3.2011."
6.3 Unfortunately, that bailable warrant remained unserved and hence, on 07.03.2011, this Court had to pass following order:-
"According to report of the office, bailable warrants issued pursuant to previous order dated 22nd February 2011 have not been duly served. Therefore, issue fresh bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5,000/- against the respondents, learned advocate, Mr.Devesh Bhatt, and his client, Shri R.H.Patel, whose address is mentioned in the previous order, for producing them before this Court on 24th March 2011. The police officer concerned shall see to it that now the warrants are served in time and the respondents are produced before this Court on that date."
6.4 On 04.04.2011, the Court passed following order:-
"1. None present for the respondents. In spite of bailable warrants ordered to be issued on 7.3.2011 and in spite of warrants having been served upon respondent No.1, he is not personally present in the Court.
Page 11 of 44
HC-NIC Page 11 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
Instead, he has written a letter dated
23.3.2011 addressed to the Registrar
General of the High Court for excusing his absence on the grounds stated therein. Learned counsel Mr.Asim Pandya, appearing as amicus curiae, and learned Additional Advocate General assisting the Court submitted that the respondent's advocate and some of his client clearly appears to have committed contempt of this Court or the subordinate Court on several occasions and they were required to be prosecuted in that regard. It was, however, also submitted that in view of the bulky record of several applications and proceedings, each case of alleged contempt was required to be separated and separate motion for further proceedings is required to be prepared for service thereof upon the respondents. Learned counsel Mr.Pandya submitted that he will have to take out sometime out of his busy schedule for categorising the cases and assisting the Court in preparing separate motions.
2. Therefore, hearing of the matter is, for the present, adjourned to 8.4.2011. In the meantime, Police Officer concerned shall do the needful for production of the respondents before this Court on that date and forfeiture of the amount of security if respondent No.1 is released on bail pursuant to the bailable warrant ordered to be issued on 7.3.2011."Page 12 of 44
HC-NIC Page 12 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER 6.5 As it appears therefrom, the Court recorded that inspite of warrants having been served upon the respondent, he was not remaining personally present in the Court, instead he had written letter dated 23.03.2011 addressed to the Registrar General of the Court for excusing his absence. The Court had also observed that the police officer concerned shall do the needful for production of the respondent before this Court and forfeiture of the security amount.
6.6 On 08.04.2011, the Court once again had to record that none of the respondents were present in the Court. However, before passing any coercive orders, the Court observed that the alleged instances of contempt of Court are required to be segregated and separately numbered for preparation of several separate motions.
The said order reads as under:-
"Pursuant to previous order dated 4.4.2011 warrants are sought to be served upon the respondents. It is reported by Police Sub Inspector, Mr.P.B.Ramanuj of Gujarat University Police Station, that the bailable warrant is already served upon respondent no.1 and he was, in fact, informed to remain personally present today. As for respondent no.2, the warrant could not be executed as he is reported to have left the premises at the given address. Therefore, warrant against him remains to be executed. None of the respondents is personally Page 13 of 44 HC-NIC Page 13 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER present in the Court. Before issuing any further coercive process, it is deemed proper to have the voluminous record of references duly analyzed and motions prepared for service upon the respondents. It appears that there are separate instances of alleged contempt of Court which require to be segregated and separately numbered in the office for preparation and service of separate motions. Therefore, each instance of the alleged contempt, which is not barred by the period of limitation, shall be segregated and separately numbered in the office. S.O. to 18th April 2011. In the meantime, the police officers concerned should take appropriate steps for forfeiture of the bond furnished by respondent no.1."
6.7 On 19.04.2011, this Court passed following order:-
"The respondents are not present even as the matter was called out twice during the course of the day. Respondent No. 1 is stated to have issued fresh notices addressed to the members of this Bench, the Registrar of the High Court and even learned counsel, Mr. Asim J. Pandya, who appears as amicus curiae. It was, therefore, submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Pandya, that now the only course open for securing presence of the respondent is to issue non-bailable warrant.
Learned Public Proseuctor, Mr. Jani, submitted, on instructions of Police Officers, in-charge Page 14 of 44 HC-NIC Page 14 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER of Navrangpura and University Police Stations, that respondent No. 1 has changed his address and even after execution of the bailable warrant, he has not remained present before this Court. It was further submitted that the police officers concerned will take necessary legal steps for forfeiting the bond submitted by the respondent at the time of being released on bail and make appropriate application before the learned Magistrate concerned for issuing non-bailable warrant for production of the respondent before this Court on the next date of hearing.
It was seen from the record that apart from the voluminous record of the main proceedings registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 11750 of 2008, there are several other instances of alleged contempt which have been separated and registered as Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 5199 of 2011 to 5209 of 2011. Therefore, it was submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Pandya, that fresh notices in those cases were also required to be issued at the proper address with all necessary annexures. Under the circumstances, hearing is, for the present, adjourned to 25.04.2011. Learned Public Prosecutor is requested to place on record the correct current address/addresses of the respondent. If the respondent No. 1 is arrested in the meantime pursuant to the process which may be issued by learned Magistrate concerned, he shall be produced before this Court on the next date of hearing subject to relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code."Page 15 of 44
HC-NIC Page 15 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER 6.8 On 25.04.2011, the Court passed following order:-
"Learned AGP Mr. Rashesh Rindani, submitted, on instructions, that in spite of reasonable efforts being made after issuance of non- bailable warrant by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the respondent, learned advocate, could not be traced and could not be brought before this Court today. He, therefore, sought time for execution of the warrant and production of learned advocate Mr. Bhatt, before this Court.
"Learned amicus curiae, Mr. Asim Pandya, submitted that in view of fresh notices issued by learned counsel Mr. Bhatt, the alleged contemnor, to the members of this Bench as well as to himself, learned counsel Mr. Devesh Bhatt appears to be consciously committing contempt before this Court by his acts of commission and omission which tend to lower the authority of this Court and interfere with due course of judicial proceeding as also to obstruct the administration of justice.
We, however, deem it proper to give one more opportunity to learned counsel Mr. Devesh Bhatt, to present himself before this Court or to be produced before this Court before taking cognizance of his acts and omissions which may amount to contempt committed in presence of this Court. The issue of attachment of his property may also be examined on that date.
Page 16 of 44
HC-NIC Page 16 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
Learned AGP is requested to place on record an affidavit of the police officer in-charge, who is entrusted the job of executing the warrant against Mr. Bhatt, the alleged contemner, as regards the attempts made at executing the warrant of his arrest. S.O. to 29.04.2011."
6.9 On 29.04.2011, the Court passed following order:-
"1. In spite of the previous orders and issuance of non-bailable warrant, the respondent, Mr. Devesh Bhatt, is not present and has not been brought to the Court by the police after arresting him. An affidavit of Senior Police Inspector, Gujarat University Police Station, is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General to place on record the efforts made to arrest the respondent. It clearly appears that the respondent is avoiding service of process of this Court and is likely to abscond, even as twelve other cases of contempt of Court are registered and listed for hearing today.
2. Under the circumstances, hearing of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 11750 of 2008 is adjourned to 04.07.2011 and office is directed to issue bailable warrant alongwith copies of reference/motions as the case may be in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with surety of the like amount in each of the other cases for production of the respondent, Mr. Devesh Bhatt on Page 17 of 44 HC-NIC Page 17 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER 04.07.2011.
3. Learned counsel, Mr. Asim Pandya has been requested to assist the Court as an amicus curiae in all the matters. His name appears to have been wrongly shown against the name of Mr. Devesh Bhatt on the board for listing the matters today. Therefore, office is directed to see that name of learned counsel, Mr. Asim Pandya, is not shown against the name of Mr. Devesh Bhatt. The name of learned counsel Mr. Asim Pandya, should be shown below the words Suo Motu and the words amicus curiae should appear in the same line in which the name of Mr. Asim Pandya is shown.
4. As learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, has appeared to assist the Court, he is requested to see that by the next date of hearing, appropriate arrangements are made to see that the warrants are executed upon Mr. Devesh Bhatt in the meantime, failing which an affidavit of Police Officer of the rank of Dy. Commissioner of Police concerned is filed to explain failure of the police department in executing warrants of this Court. He is also requested to collect and provide information about the properties and bank accounts of Mr. Devesh Bhatt so as to order attachment thereof, in case of necessity.
5. Necessary steps should also be taken for Page 18 of 44 HC-NIC Page 18 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER forfeiture of the bond executed by Mr. Devesh Bhatt at the time of being released on bail pursuant to the bailable warrant issued earlier. The State of Gujarat shall stand joined as party respondent in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6030 of 2011 and Criminal Misc. Applications No. 5199 of 2011 to 5209 of 2011 and Government Pleader shall be shown to be appearing for the State on the cause list, as suggested by learned Additional Advocate General."
6.10 On 11.11.2011, the Court passed following order:-
"Today, neither the respondent, Mr.Devesh Bhatt, nor anyone on his behalf is present before this Special Bench. The office has forwarded the sick note dated November 11, 2011 which is purported to have been signed by Mr.Devesh Bhatt and addressed to the Registrar of this Court. According to the sick note, Mr.Bhatt is suffering from cold, cough and fever, and hence, not in a position to attend the Court today. The application is not supported by any medical certificate or any other evidence of any ailment suffered by Mr.Bhatt. He knows that a Special Bench has had to be constituted for hearing number of cases of contempt pending against him and pursuant to latest order dated 21.10.2011 herein he is required to explain as to why fresh contempt proceedings should not be initiated and his Page 19 of 44 HC-NIC Page 19 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER bail bond should not be forfeited in view of violation of conditions of bail. However, in view of the sick note of Mr.Bhatt and assuming his statement about sickness to be true, hearing of the matters is adjourned to 25th November 2011, at 2:30 p.m."
6.11 On 26.09.2013, the Court passed following order:-
1. Despite the notice and/or earlier order dated August 22, 2013 passed by this Court, served upon the opponent-alleged contemnor, he has chosen not to remain present. It is reported that the opponent-
alleged contemnor has filed a sick-note in the Registry of this Court, which facility as such may not be applicable/available to the opponent-alleged contemnor appearing as a Party-in-Person, unless an application for adjournment with supporting medical certificate is produced.
2. It is reported that earlier when the opponent-alleged contemnor was released on bail by this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.H. Waghela and Hon'ble Ms.Justice Harsha Devani) vide order dated September 09, 2011, he was released specifically on condition that the opponent-alleged contemnor shall remain personally present before this Court on each date of hearing as may be fixed by Page 20 of 44 HC-NIC Page 20 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER this Court. While releasing the opponent- alleged contemnor on bail on September 09, 2011, a statement of the opponent herein was recorded to the effect that he undertakes not to indulge in any activity which may lead to registration of fresh cases of the same nature of contempt of Court during hearing and disposal of the present set of proceedings.
3. It is reported that despite above, on one hand, the opponent-alleged contemnor is not remaining present before this Court and on the other hand, he has continued to make absolutely frivolous and unfounded serious allegations against the Honble Judges of this Court and has indulged into the same activity.
4. Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-High Court, has stated that recently also, the opponent-alleged contemnor has indulged into the similar activity of making frivolous allegations against another Bench of this Court, for which even the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are required to be initiated.
5. It is further reported that even earlier also and after the opponent was released on bail by this Court, the bailable warrant was issued against the opponent-
alleged contemnor which was served upon
him; and thereafter also, he has never
Page 21 of 44
HC-NIC Page 21 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
remained present on almost all the
occasions, except once; and as and when the proceedings are placed on Board, he is deliberately not remaining present and filing sick-notes and as such has continued with the same modus operandi as well as the activity of making frivolous and unfounded allegations against the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It is further reported that even thereafter by order dated November 11, 2011, a notice was issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the present proceedings and the opponent herein was required to explain as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated and his bail bonds should not be forfeited in view of violation of one of the conditions enumerated in the order granting bail; and thereafter, when the matter was to be taken up by the Division Bench, the opponent-alleged contemnor again made allegations against one of the Hon'ble Judges of the Bench. It is also reported that as such by order dated November 11, 2011, the opponent-alleged contemnor has been called upon to explain as to why fresh contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him and the bail bond should not be forfeited in view of violation of one of the conditions of bail granted to him.
It is reported that the earlier order
dated August 22, 2013 has already been
served upon the opponent-alleged
Page 22 of 44
HC-NIC Page 22 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
contemnor.
6. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, when the order dated August 22, 2013 passed by this Court has been served upon the opponent-alleged contemnor, despite the same he has chosen not to remain present, so as to give him the last opportunity before any order is passed cancelling the bail or forfeiting the bail bond as well as to secure his presence, the Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant against the opponent-alleged contemnor in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), making it returnable on October 11, 2013; and it shall be specifically observed therein that on that day i.e. October 11, 2013, the opponent-alleged contemnor shall personally remain present before this Court, failing which his bail bond shall be forfeited/ bail granted earlier by this Court shall be cancelled and a non- bailable warrant shall be issued against him.
The present order be served upon the opponent-alleged contemnor through University Police Station.
A copy of this order placed in each matter."
6.12 On 11.10.2013, the Court passed following
Page 23 of 44
HC-NIC Page 23 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
order:-
"Earlier vide order dated 26/09/2013, we passed the following order directing the Registry to issue bailable warrant against the respondent- alleged contemnor in the sum of Rs.10,000/- making it returnable on 11/10/2013;
Despite the notice and/or earlier order dated August 22, 2013 passed by this Court, served upon the opponent-alleged contemnor, he has chosen not to remain present. It is reported that the opponent-alleged contemnor has filed a sick-note in the Registry of this Court, which facility as such may not be applicable/available to the opponent-alleged contemnor appearing as a Party-in-Person, unless an application for adjournment with supporting medical certificate is produced.
1. It is reported that earlier when the opponent-alleged contemnor was released on bail by this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.H. Waghela and Hon'ble Ms.Justice Harsha Devani) vide order dated September 09, 2011, he was released specifically on condition that the opponent-alleged contemnor shall remain personally present before this Court on each date of hearing as may be fixed by this Court. While releasing the opponent-alleged contemnor on bail on September 09, 2011, a statement of the opponent herein was recorded to the effect that he undertakes not to indulge in any Page 24 of 44 HC-NIC Page 24 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER activity which may lead to registration of fresh cases of the same nature of contempt of Court during hearing and disposal of the present set of proceedings.
2. It is reported that despite above, on one hand, the opponent-alleged contemnor is not remaining present before this Court and on the other hand, he has continued to make absolutely frivolous and unfounded serious allegations against the Honble Judges of this Court and has indulged into the same activity.
3. Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-High Court, has stated that recently also, the opponent-alleged contemnor has indulged into the similar activity of making frivolous allegations against another Bench of this Court, for which even the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are required to be initiated.
4. It is further reported that even earlier also and after the opponent was released on bail by this Court, the bailable warrant was issued against the opponent-alleged contemnor which was served upon him; and thereafter also, he has never remained present on almost all the occasions, except once; and as and when the proceedings are placed on Board, he is deliberately not remaining present and filing sick-notes and as such has continued with the Page 25 of 44 HC-NIC Page 25 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER same modus operandi as well as the activity of making frivolous and unfounded allegations against the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It is further reported that even thereafter by order dated November 11, 2011, a notice was issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the present proceedings and the opponent herein was required to explain as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated and his bail bonds should not be forfeited in view of violation of one of the conditions enumerated in the order granting bail; and thereafter, when the matter was to be taken up by the Division Bench, the opponent-alleged contemnor again made allegations against one of the Hon'ble Judges of the Bench. It is also reported that as such by order dated November 11, 2011, the opponent-alleged contemnor has been called upon to explain as to why fresh contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him and the bail bond should not be forfeited in view of violation of one of the conditions of bail granted to him.
It is reported that the earlier order dated August 22, 2013 has already been served upon the opponent-alleged contemnor.
5. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, when the order dated August 22, 2013 passed by this Court has been served upon Page 26 of 44 HC-NIC Page 26 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER the opponent-alleged contemnor, despite the same he has chosen not to remain present, so as to give him the last opportunity before any order is passed cancelling the bail or forfeiting the bail bond as well as to secure his presence, the Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant against the opponent-alleged contemnor in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), making it returnable on October 11, 2013; and it shall be specifically observed therein that on that day i.e. October 11, 2013, the opponent-alleged contemnor shall personally remain present before this Court, failing which his bail bond shall be forfeited/ bail granted earlier by this Court shall be cancelled and a non-bailable warrant shall be issued against him.
The present order be served upon the opponent- alleged contemnor through University Police Station.
A copy of this order placed in each matter.
It is reported by the Registry from the communications by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad addressed to the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat that the bailable warrant issued against the respondent herein, pursuant to the earlier order dated 26/09/2013, has been served upon the respondent herein.
Page 27 of 44
HC-NIC Page 27 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
Despite the above, the respondent herein has chosen not to remain present. Once, the bailable warrant has been served upon the respondent, he is bound to appear before this Court. It is required to be noted at this stage that in our earlier order dated 26/09/2013, we have specifically directed the Registry to observe/mention in the notice that on 11/10/2013, the respondent-alleged contemnor shall remain present before this Court, failing which his bail bond shall be forfeited/bail granted earlier by this Court shall be cancelled and a non-bailable warrant shall be issued against him. Despite the above notice as well as bailable warrant served upon the respondent herein, he has chosen to remain absent.
Under the circumstances and considering our earlier order dated 26/09/2013, the bail granted by this Court pursuant to the order dated 09/09/2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11750/2008 and other allied matters stands cancelled and bail bond is fortified and Registry is directed to issue non-bailable warrant upon the respondent herein. Non-bailable warrant shall be served upon the respondent-alleged contemnor through the University Police Station, Ahmedabad and the concerned Police Officer of University Police Station, Ahmedabad is directed to produce the respondent herein, who is to be Page 28 of 44 HC-NIC Page 28 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER arrested pursuant to the non-bailable order issued, before this Court within 24 hours from his actual arrest. Otherwise, all these applications stand adjourned to 18/10/2013."
6.13 On 18.10.2013, the Court passed following order:-
"1.00. Earlier on last occasion by passing detailed order dated 11/10/2013 this Court has cancelled the bail granted by this Court to the respondent alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt, granted pursuant to the earlier order dated 9/9/2011 passed in Criminal Misc.Application No.11750 of 2008 and other allied matters and forfeited the bail bond and had directed to issue Non-bailable Warrant against the respondent alleged contemnor - Mr.Devesh Bhatt and accordingly Non-bailable Warrant has been issued against respondent alleged contemnor - Mr.Devesh Bhatt and concerned Court has sent the same to the concerned police officer of University Police Station, Ahmedabad for its execution.
2.00. Today, when the present proceedings are taken up for further hearing, Mr.Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record Affidavit of Mr.S.J. Parmar, PSI of University Police Station, Ahmedabad stating that all efforts are made by him to execute Non-bailable Warrant upon respondent alleged contemnor - Mr.Devesh Bhatt right from 15/10/2013 till date and he has tried to serve Page 29 of 44 HC-NIC Page 29 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER the Non-bailable Warrant upon the respondent alleged contemnor - Mr.Devesh Bhatt at his residence as well as his office, however, it is found that he is avoiding execution of the Non- bailable Warrant and has absconded. He has also stated in the Affidavit that even statement of the wife of the respondent alleged contemnor has been recorded and she has stated that the respondent is not available since 13/10/2013 and she does not know whereabouts of the respondent. Affidavit of Mr.S.J. Parmar, PSI of University Police Station, Ahmedabad is directed to be taken on record.
3.00. From the aforesaid, it appears that the respondent is avoiding execution of the Non- bailable Warrant and avoiding his arrest. Still, however, the concerned police officer may try to execute the Non-bailable Warrant upon the respondent alleged contemnor - Mr.Devesh Bhatt and for that, as a last chance S.O. to 24/10/2013. If by that time the Non- bailable Warrant could not be executed upon the respondent due non-availability/absconding of the respondent alleged contemnor - Mr.Devesh Bhatt, Court shall pass further orders to secure his presence, inclusive of order in exercise of power under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
6.14 On 21.11.2011, the Court passed following order:-
"1. A report of Police Inspector, Gujarat University Police Station is submitted before Page 30 of 44 HC-NIC Page 30 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER this Court by Shri Hardik Soni, learned APP. In the report, it is stated that all efforts are made by the concerned police officer of the Gujarat University Police Station and even by the higher officers to execute the non-bailable warrant upon the respondent. However, all efforts have failed and the non-bailable warrant upon the respondent could not be served as the respondent is absconding since 13.10.2013. From the various correspondence by the alleged contempner Shri Devesh Bhatt, it appears that he is not only aware of the present proceedings but even various orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings and more particularly order dated 24.10.2013. Instead of appearing before this Court, the alleged contempner is submitting the reply in the form of correspondence through RPAD. Thus, it appears that the respondent contempner Shri Devesh Bhatt is deliberately avoiding execution of the non-bailable warrant issued by this Court and he is also avoiding to appear before this Court even though he is appearing as party-in-person in the present suo motu proceedings. We are of the opinion that this is a fit case for the order under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Shri Hardik Soni, learned APP, under the instructions from Mr.V.B.Patel, P.I., Gujarat University Police Station, has stated at bar that he shall submit an application before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, tomorrow i.e. on 22nd November 2013, Page 31 of 44 HC-NIC Page 31 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER for issuing a proclamation against the respondent alleged contempner Devesh Bhatt. Let the P.I., Gujarat University Police Station, submit an appropriate application before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, who has issued the non-bailable warrant against the respondent - alleged contempner Devesh Bhatt, for appropriate proclamation and attachment under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on submitting the said application, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall pass appropriate order on the said application immediately.
3. Shri Hardik Soni, learned APP, under the instructions of Shri J.D.Jadeja, in-charge A.C.P., B-Division, Ahmedabad, has also stated at the bar that all efforts shall be made by the State Government to execute the non- bailable warrant upon the respondent herein alleged contempner Devesh Bhatt.
S.O. to 12th December 2013."
6.15 On 24.12.2013, this Court passed following order, in which it is required to be noted that the Court refused the request for bail of the respondent and he was sent to custody and was ordered to be produced on 26.12.2013:-
"The alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt is brought before the Court by the police pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued against him Page 32 of 44 HC-NIC Page 32 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.12.2013. Today regular Bench is not available. That is how the proceedings are placed before us. We propose to keep these matters on 26th December 2013 when in all probabilities regular Bench may be available.
We heard Mr.Devesh Bhatt why his custody should not be continued till then. He made an oral request for bail. His past record, however, suggests that previously when he was released on bail on certain conditions, including the condition of remaining present before the Court on different dates of hearing, he breached those conditions. Even the warrant could not be served to him immediately. Under the circumstances, while adjourning these cases to 26th December, 2013, his oral request for being released on bail is refused.
The police authority shall continue to keep him in custody and produce him before the Court on 26th December, 2013."
6.16 On 09.05.2014, this Court passed following order:-
"1.00. Today, when all these applications are taken up for further hearing, a communication is received from the jail authority addressed by the respondent - Mr.Devesh Bhatt requesting for time on the ground that he is not well. Hence, S.O. to 9/6/2014.
2.00. Amicus curie and the learned advocate
Page 33 of 44
HC-NIC Page 33 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
appearing on behalf of the State has no
objection if in the meantime, the respondent Mr.Devesh Bhatt is released on temporary bail on the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
3.00. In view of the above and looking to the health of the respondent Mr.Devesh Bhatt, in the meantime, the respondent in all these applications namely Mr.Devesh Bhatt is ordered to be released on temporary bail on his furnishing Personal Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount, on condition that he shall remain present before this Court on each and every date in any of the applications and he shall not write any letter in respect of any judicial officers in the judiciary of the State of Gujarat."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Thus, while being enlarged on temporary bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.10,000/-, as it is noticed from the order cited hereinabove, a condition came to be imposed that he shall remain personally present before the Court on each and every date and in any of the applications and he shall not write any letter in respect of any judicial officers in the judiciary of the State of Gujarat. Unfortunately, that condition has been successfully violated throughout as the record of these proceedings would vouch for the same. Therefore, Page 34 of 44 HC-NIC Page 34 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER on 12.09.2014, the Court had to pass following order, in which the Court had recorded that respondent No.1, who had been enlarged on bail and whose bail was cancelled, was once again given temporary bail, but had not remained present:-
"Present application is suo motu contempt proceedings against the respondent no.1- Shri Devesh Bhatt. Notice upon the respondent alleged contemnor is served and, in fact, the matter was adjourned time and again and the respondent alleged contemnor was not remaining present and was avoiding to appear before this Court and hence, his presence was secured by issuing bailable / non bailable warrant and at one point of time, even his bail also came to be cancelled. However, thereafter he has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2014. However, after the alleged contmnor
-respondent is released on bail, the matters are adjourned time and again due to non- availability of respondent- alleged contmnor on one or the other ground mostly on filing of sick note. Today also, it is reported that respondent alleged contemnor has chosen to remain absent by sending the sick note addressed to the Registrar General by hand delivery along with certificate of one Dr. Jayesh Trivedi, Department of Internal Medicine Consulting Physician, Sal Hospital dated 11.9.2014 wherein it is stated that the respondent - alleged contemnor is suffering from viral fever and was advised to take rest Page 35 of 44 HC-NIC Page 35 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER till 13.09.2014. Under the circumstances, as a last chance, stand over to 19.9.2014. If on that day, respondent alleged contemnor remains absent on any ground, appropriate order shall be passed to secure his present. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the respondent appearing as party-in-person through concerned police station."
8. Thereafter on 01.10.2014, this Court passed following order:-
"1.00. That on 12/9/2014, this Court passed the following order by observing that the respondent alleged contemnor is deliberately not remaining present :-
Present application is suo motu contempt proceedings against the respondent no.1 - Shri Devesh Bhatt. Notice upon the respondent alleged contemnor is served and, in fact, the matter was adjourned time and again and the respondent alleged contemnor was not remaining present and was avoiding to appear before this Court and hence, his presence was secured by issuing bailable / non bailable warrant and at one point of time, even his bail also came to be cancelled. However, thereafter he has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2014. However, after the alleged contmnor respondent is released on bail, the matters are adjourned time and again due to non-availability of respondent alleged contmnor on one or the other ground Page 36 of 44 HC-NIC Page 36 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER mostly on filing of sick note. Today also, it is reported that respondent alleged contemnor has chosen to remain absent by sending the sick note addressed to the Registrar General by hand delivery along with certificate of one Dr. Jayesh Trivedi, Department of Internal Medicine Consulting Physician, Sal Hospital dated 11.9.2014 wherein it is stated that the respondent alleged contemnor is suffering from viral fever and was advised to take rest till 13.09.2014. Under the circumstances, as a last chance, stand over to 19.9.2014. If on that day, respondent alleged contemnor remains absent on any ground, appropriate order shall be passed to secure his present. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the respondent appearing as party-in-person through concerned police station.
2.00. That thereafter the registry has issued notice upon the respondent alleged contemnor directing him to remain present / appear as Party-in-person. That the notice upon the respondent alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt was directed to be served through the concerned Police Station.
3.00. It is reported that the notice upon the respondent alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt could not be served either at his residential place or at his office. It is reported that the family members of the respondent alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt have stated that they Page 37 of 44 HC-NIC Page 37 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER do not know the whereabouts of the respondent alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt and that he is also not keeping any mobile. Under the circumstances, it appears that the respondent alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt is avoiding the service of notice upon him.
4.00. At this stage it is required to be noted that as such earlier the presence of the respondent alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt was secured through Non-Bailable Warrants and earlier his bail bonds were also cancelled, as after releasing him on bail, not only he started making allegations against judicial officers but he also misused the liberty shown to him.
5.00. Under the circumstances, now again presence of the respondent alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt is required to be secured by issuing Non-Bailable Warrant. Under the circumstances, Registry is directed to issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the respondent alleged contemnor Mr.Devesh Bhatt to be served through the concerned Police Station. S.O. to 12th November, 2014."
9. The Court, thus, issued non-bailable warrant and the matter was adjourned to 12.11.2014. Thereafter, it seems that a communication was issued dated 25.07.2014 by the respondent, which gave, as it is stated hereinabove in the beginning of this order, rise to the proceedings of Criminal Misc.Application No.20516 of Page 38 of 44 HC-NIC Page 38 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER 2014, making allegations against the concerned Judge.
The said communication deserves to be reproduced at this stage which would clearly indicate that how and in what manner, the respondent is conducting himself:-
"Devesh Bhatt, Advocate M.Com, LL. M., CAIIB, FICA
---------------------------
C-6, Shitalam Apartments, 2nd Floor, Nr.AMA, Dr.Vikram Sarabhai Road, Panjara Pole, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 July 25, 2014 By Speed Post To, Shri A.P.Joseph, Principal Secretary to the Chief Justice, High Court of Gujarat, S.G.Road, Sola, Ahmedabad Dear Sir, Sub.:Action U/s.3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 against Shri (Justice M.R.Shah.
We request you to please bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice the following;
(1) Shri (Justice) M.R.Shab and Dr. (Justice) K.J.Thakar on 4th July, 2014 decided to pass appropriate order on 1st August, 2014, ex-parte, in CRMA/11750/2008 and other allied matters.
This decision of 4th July 2014 was conveyed to Page 39 of 44 HC-NIC Page 39 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER us by Registry vide their letter No.166/14 dated 7th July, 2014. A copy of this letter is annexed herewith.
(2) We draw your Lordship's specific attention to two matters viz. CRMA/4835/2014 in CRMA/16089/2012 and CRMA/5149/2014 in CRMA/20723/2013 shown at serial no.2 and 3 respectively in the said order dated 4th July, 2014. Since both the CRMAs are seeking the action of contempt of his own court against Shri (Justice) Shah, Your Lordship have, by specific orders, assigned both the matters to the Court of Shri (Justice) K.S.Zhaveri and Shri (Justice) A.G.Uraizee.
(3) Shri (Justice) Shah was well aware of the fact that he cannot pass any order in the matter alleging contempt of court by him. Besides, he was under the direction of Your Lordship not to deal with it and still he decided as above. It is important to note that he earlier also on 2nd August, 2013 threatened ex-parte order in the same matter, though he was aware that contempt proceeding cannot be conducted ex-parte.
(4) We are sorry to state that this Court has set in a dangerous trend of proceeding ex-parte in contempt matters against all citizens, particularly when, they are initiated SUO-MOTU. In CRMA No.11750/2008, this Court directed the notice of admission, at first instance only, on 13-4-2009 without notice of preliminary hearing as contemplated under Rule-12 of Contempt of Page 40 of 44 HC-NIC Page 40 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER Court (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984. In that case and in subsequent cases also (CRMAs Nos.5199/2011 to 5209/2011 and 6030/2011), no motion/reference/petition accompanied the notice which was in the direct the violation of provision contained at Sec. 17(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We request Your Lordship to kindly take effective steps on the administrative side to curb this illegal practice.
(5) In view of the forgoing, we pray to Your Lordships that;
(5.1) High Court of Gujarat, after due process of law, deprive Shri (Justice) M.R.Shah of the protection u/s.3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985; and (5.2) High Court of Gujarat may take suitable criminal, departmental and contempt of court action u/s.3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 against Shri (Justice) M.R.Shah; and (5.3) alternatively, grant us the permission to take suitable criminal and contempt of court action against Shri (Justice) Shah.
(6) We most humbly submit that till the time Your Lordship disposes off this application, it will be in the interest of justice to allow us not to remain present before the Court of Shri (Justice) Shah on or after 1st August, 2014, despite the order dated 24th July, 2014 if that Page 41 of 44 HC-NIC Page 41 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER Court.
Encl.: As above
Yours faithfully
(Devesh Bhatt)
Advocate
Copy to:-
The Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat, S.G.Road, Sola, Ahmedabad. He is requested to bring this to the notice of Hon'ble Shri (Justice) M.R.Shah and Dr. (Justice) K.J.Thakar.
(Devesh Bhatt) Advocate"
10. On 26.11.2014, this Court passed the following order:-
"Not before this Court."
10.1 As per the above order, the entire group was said to be not before that Court.
11. On 12.12.2014, this Court, in the proceedings of Criminal Misc.Application (for contempt of Court) No.20516 of 2014, passed following order:-
"Not before this Court."
12. Registry has received communication dated July Page 42 of 44 HC-NIC Page 42 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER 15, 2016, wherein the respondent has contended that issuance of bailable warrant was incorrect and contrary to law. Copy of this communication is marked to the Registrar General and he is requested to bring this letter to the notice of this Bench.
13. Thus, it is clear from the present letter dated July 15, 2016, the report of the City Sessions Court and the register duly signed by the Police Inspector, Gujarat University Police Station that the so far as Criminal Misc.Application (for contempt of Court) No.20516 of 2014 is concerned, he is aware that it is listed on 19.07.2016, i.e. today. Despite that, the respondent has chosen not to remain present before the Court and has addressed a letter, which, in our view, is of no consequence and rather an attempt to dodge the hearing of the matters. Therefore, we are left with no choice but to direct the concerned Magistrate to issue non-bailable warrant against the respondent for procuring his presence before this Court on 27.07.2016.
14. All these matters be listed on 27.07.2016.
15. We appreciate the services rendered by Shri Pandya.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.)
Page 43 of 44
HC-NIC Page 43 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/20516/2014 ORDER
(A.Y. KOGJE, J.)
SHITOLE
Page 44 of 44
HC-NIC Page 44 of 44 Created On Mon Jul 25 06:30:53 IST 2016