SARITA PARIKH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20th August, 2009, while disposing of an application filed by the Petitioners in W.P.(Crl) No. D.22040 of 2008, we had issued a fresh rule of contempt against the three writ Petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the contempt matter was listed on 23 rd February, 2010, when a letter was received by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court addressed by the alleged contemnors, Ms. Leela Neil David, Dr. Sarita Parikh and Ms. Annette Kotian indicating that they had contracted Chikungunhya and required time for recovery to appear in connection with the contempt case. In the alternative, they prayed for extension of time for their personal appearance. It is, therefore, evident that notice of the contempt proceedings had been served on the said contemnors and they were aware of the proceedings. The matter was accordingly adjourned till 13th July, 2010, when Ms. Annette Kotian appeared personally, though, Dr. Sarita Parikh and Smt. Leila David, the other two alleged contemnors did not appear. Ms. Kotian was given time to file her affidavit to the Suo Motu Contempt Rule and as far as Dr. Sarita Parikh and Ms. Leila David are concerned, bailable warrants were issued against them, returnable on 26th October, 2010.

(2.) The matter was listed once again on 27th October, 2010, when none of the alleged contemnors were present in Court, despite the bailable warrants which had been issued against Dr. Sarita Parikh and Ms. Leila David. We, therefore, had no alternative but to issue non-bailable warrants of arrest against Dr. Sarita Parikh and Ms. Leila David, which were directed to the Additional Commissioner of Police(Crime),Mumbai, for execution and production of the said two contemnors before the Court on 23rd November, 2010, at 3.30 p.m. In the said order, we had also expressed our dismay that it was difficult to accept that the Mumbai Police were unable to execute the warrants of arrest against the three contemnors.

(3.) Since then, the matter was listed on different occasions, when reports had been received from the Additional Commissioner of Police(Crime), Mumbai, indicating as to how attempts were being made to execute the non-bailable warrants. Ultimately, when the matter was once again listed on 12th January, 2011, a report from the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) Mumbai, was brought to our notice wherein it was mentioned that the non-bailable warrants against the alleged contemnors, Ms. Leila David, Dr. Sarita Parikh and Ms. Annette Kotian could not be executed since they could not still be traced. It was, however, also indicated in the report that the alleged contemnors were moving in an around Delhi and had been moving from Faridabad to Noida respectively. In our order of 12th January, 2011, we had observed that the report seemed to suggest that the alleged contemnors had been staying in a premises belonging to one Ms. Apurva Agavan, who was present at Bungalow No. A-95, Santosh Sadan, Sector 27, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh. Certain cell phone numbers were also mentioned, which indicated that the contemnors were hiding somewhere in NOIDA and Faridabad. On account of the above, while directing the Additional Commissioner of Police(Crime), Mumbai, to continue with his efforts to trace and apprehend the alleged contemnors, we also directed fresh non- bailable warrants to issue against the alleged contemnors and have the same sent for execution to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, and also the Senior Superintendent of Police, NOIDA, returnable today. From the reports, as submitted both by the Additional Commissioner of Police(Crime), Mumbai and the Additional Superintendent of Police (T/P) Gautam Budh Nagar, it appears that the non-bailable warrants of arrest could not be executed as the alleged contemnors could not be traced. In fact, even the mobile phone number which had been provided belonged to one Shri Sartaj Ansari and one Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, who disclaimed any knowledge of any of the three alleged contemnors. A glance at the reports submitted will clearly indicate the mechanical manner in which the same has been prepared and submitted to this Court.