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 me 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 indifferent newspapers making false claims giving an impression that only his institution on 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 writ application of Respondent No. 1 was disposed of by learned Single Judge of the High Court in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1437 of 1997. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in appeal (MAT No. 462 of 1998) filed by respondent No. 1. One of the grounds urged in the appeal was that the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1437 of 1997 was different from the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 20305 (W) of 1997 and the learned Single Judge committed serious illegality in not going into the merits and merely disposing of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1437 of 1997. By the impugned judgment, the learned Division Bench held that it was the duty of the learned Single Judge to disposed of the Writ Petition No. 20305 (W) of 1997 on merits. The Bench further held that instead of remanding the matter, Writ Petition No. 20305 (W) of 1997 can be disposed of by restraining the appellant herein and his institutions from using the name of the court or giving reference to any case decided by the Calcutta High Court either in the prospectus or in any advertisement so that no impression is created in the mind of the public that High Court has approved the said institutions or recognized those as having authority to impart knowledge about the system of alternative medicine.