PRODIP KUMAR BISWAS Vs. SUBRATA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed under Section 19 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act'). In one of the appeals, the challenge is to the impugned judgment and order of the High Court whereby the appellant has been held guilty of criminal contempt of court and fine of Rs.2,000/- has been imposed upon him. The main grievance that has been urged by learned counsel in support of the appeal is that the High Court before holding the appellant guilty and imposing fine neither issued any notice nor afforded any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In the second appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order of the High Court whereby the appellant was directed to be taken into custody forthwith though later on the same date, he was ordered to be released on bail. Both the appeals are offshoot of the same litigation pending in the High Court in respect whereof we may make a brief reference.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 filed Writ Application (WP No.20305 (W) of 1997) in the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, praying that the State-respondents be directed to take appropriate action against the appellant and the institutions run by him and he be stopped from deceiving public by issue of publications and advertisements in different newspapers making false claims giving an impression that only his institution of alternative medicines was recognized by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal and approved by Medical Council of India as also by the High Court of Calcutta. It was claimed that by such false representations, the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) had been duped; made payment of the requisite fee and took admission in the Medical College of Alternative Medicines run by the appellant. In another Writ Application (WP No. 1437/97) filed by one Mr. Bidyut Kumar Guha Roy, allegations had been made against one Dr. S.K. Agarwal and his institution on alternative medicines viz. Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and Open International University for Alternative Medicines. In the said writ petition neither the appellant or his institution nor respondent No. 1 were parties.

(3.) THE issue in these appeals is not about the correctness of the judgment of the High Court in disposing of the appeal and the writ petition of Respondent No.1 in the aforesaid manner. However, by the same judgment and order, the Division Bench held the appellant guilty of criminal contempt of court and imposed fine on him, as earlier noticed. We are concerned, only with the part of the order that deals with the contempt aspect.