Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It appears from the Farad Sheet that, this Court issued notices to the respondents and the respondent no.1 filed affidavit in reply on 6th August, 2003. Thereafter, the Petition was listed from time to time for hearing and on 21 st February, 2006, this Court requested Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Assistant Government Pleader, to prepare draft charges and submit the same in two weeks. It also appears that, the Court on 20th June, 2006 directed to circulate the draft charges to the parties concerned. On 30 th June, 2006, this Court had taken on record draft charges filed by Mr. Nargolkar, A.G.P. The said draft charges read thus :-

3. We, therefore, direct that you be tried by this High Court of Judicature on the said charges."
4. However, thereafter as it appears from perusal of the record, no substantive hearing has taken place or those draft charges have remained as draft charges. The matter was transferred from Cri.CP2.14 Principal Seat at Mumbai to Aurangabad Bench of the High Court on 17.11.2006. Thereafter, by order dated 8 th August, 2011, this Court allowed the application filed by the respondent no.1 for exemption.

13. As it has come on record that the draft charges were framed on 30-06-2006, the second affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 was in the month of May 2006. As already observed, even in the affidavit dated 06.08.2003 which has allowed to be withdrawn, respondent No.1 had shown his intention to tender the unconditional apology. Therefore, it is difficult to fathom that, the respondent No.1 had no intention to tender unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity. In the present contempt proceedings, after framing the draft charge, the proceedings have not been proceeded further on merits. The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the case of M.C. Mehata Vs. Union of India & others (supra), in support of his contention that, belated unconditional apology of the respondent may not be accepted is concerned, the contemner therein, in his Cri.CP2.14 own admission, has kept running the plant which was held to be hazardous and noxious industry in total disregard and consistent defiance of the orders passed by the Supreme Court with impunity. In the facts of the present case, as already observed, the respondent No.1 has shown his intention to tender unconditional apology even before framing of the draft charges. There cannot be two opinion about the observations of the Supreme Court, in the case of L.D. Jaikwal Vs. State of U.P. (supra) that, apology tendered by contemnor should be accepted as an exception and not as a rule. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the different facts situation inasmuch as, the High Court of Allahabad initiated contempt proceedings, and found the appellant guilty of having committed criminal contempt under section 2(c) (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, after affording him full opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the facts of the case in hand are altogether different. In the case of C. Yeumalai and others V. A.G.L. Irudayaraj and another (supra), there was breach of the Supreme Court order directing the parties not to create third-

party rights till disposal of the suit. Respondents therein created third-party rights, and then tendered unconditional apology, which was not accepted by the Supreme Court. We have also considered the other judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Cri.CP2.14 petitioner, however, the fact situation in the present proceedings is different inasmuch as, before framing of draft charges, the respondent no.1 in clear words in the affidavit in reply filed in the month of May 2006 stated thus :-