RAZIYA MAHABOOB PATEL Vs. RAJESAB HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents/accused Nos. 1 and 2 and carefully perused the case papers with their assistance. Though the matter came up or listed before the Court to hear regarding the framing of charges against the respondents/accused, with the consent of both sides, we have heard the matter for its final disposal and it is accordingly disposed of finally by this order.

(2.) THE complainant is one Smt. Raziy Mehaboob Patel and the respondents/accused are: Sri Rajesab Hasan Dongre Janavekar and the City Municipal Council, Bijapur represented by its Commissioner and they were parties to the writ petition filed before this Court in W. P. No. 8430/99. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 23-8-1999 with certain directions. The relevant portion of the order made by this Court in W. P. No. 8430/99 on 23-8-1999 reads as under :

(3.) THE complainant herein was the petitioner and the respondents/accused Nos. 1 and 2 were Respondents 2 and 3 respectively in the said writ petition filed before this Court and they were fully aware of the nature of the order passed by this Court in W. P. No. 8430/99 on 23-8-1999. While the matter stood thus, it is stated that the complainant Smt. Raziy, after obtaining a certified copy of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, requested the Respondent No. 2 to call for the fresh tender as the complainant was ready to offer her bid for Rs. 14,00,000/- as has been undertaken by her before this Court in the above writ petition, but inspite of that, it is stated that the Respondent No. 2 did not call for a fresh tender and postponed the same for one reason or the other, only with a view to favour the Respondent No. 1. Ultimately the Respondent/accused No. 2 called for the tender for collection of fee for the Sunday Bazar by publishing the notification in the Kannada-Daily on 6-3-2000, fixing the date of auction on 20-3-2000 as per Annexure-D. It is stated that on 20-3-2000, the complainant went to the office of the second respondent and found that except her, no other bidders were there to bid in the auction on 20-3-2000 at 4 O' clock in the office of the second respondent. The complainant offered her bid for Rs. 14,00,000/- for the collection of fees for Sunday Bazar commencing from 2000 to 2003. On the same day, she submitted a written representation in compliance of the order made by this Court in the writ petition that she is ready to offer Rs. 14,00,000/- and a copy of the said writ petition is filed at Annexure-F. On the same day, she gave another representation along- with a copy of the order of this Court in the writ petition as per Annexure-G. But suddenly at about 4. 30 p. m. on the same day, the Commissioner of the Respondent No. 2 City Municipal Council came out from his office and informed the complainant that they have postponed the tender. He did not however assign any reason for postponing the tender. Therefore the complainant made a representation to the second respondent to know the reasons as to why the auction was postponed. A copy of the said representation dated 20-3-2000 is filed at Annexure-H. It is stated that there were only three members at 4. 30 p. m. on 20-3-2000 when the auction was about to be held by the second respondent. The Commissioner of the second respondent obtained the signatures of all the three persons including the Respondent No. 1. When the complainant gave a written representation to know the reasons why the auction was postponed, at about 5. 30 p. m. the Commissioner informed that the first respondent has obtained a temporary injunction order from the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. , Division), Bijapur in O. S. No. 146/2000 dated 16-3-2000. The complainant insisted for a copy of the said order and accordingly the xerox copy of the said order was furnished to the complainant which is at Annexure-J. It is further stated that the first respondent filed the above suit and sought for decree of Permanent Injunction against the Respondent No. 2 restraining it from holding the auction sale of tender till expiry of the period mentioned in the order dated 11-2-1999 passed by the Government. It is stated that the Respondent No. 1 was fully aware that this Court by an order dated 23-8-1999 in W. P. No. 8430/99 directed the Respondent No. 2 to call for fresh tender fixing the upset price of Rs. 14,00,000/- and auction the rights to the party that tenders the highest offer. But suppressing this direction issued by this Court, he obtained the Temporary Injunction order from the Civil Court restraining the Respondent No. 2 from holding the auction. It is further stated that though the respondents are fully aware that this Court by an order dated 23-8-1999 in the writ petition gave a specific direction to the Respondent No. 2 to call for a fresh tender fixing the upset price of Rs. 14,00,000/- and auction the rights to the party that tenders the highest offer, they did not comply with the said direction. But the complainant in obedience to the undertaking given before this Court made several representations and offered her bid for Rs. 14,00,000/ -. The Accused No. 1 who was fully aware of the direction given by this Court, suppressed the same, obtained an ad-interim order of injunction misleading the trial Court with a mala fide intention to cause injustice to the complainant. Thereby the Respondent No. 1 has disobeyed the order of this Court. The Respondent No. 1 deliberately made a false statement before the trial Court and obtained Temporary Injunction which amounts to criminal contempt. The Respondent No. 2 is also fully aware of the orders passed by this Court, but deliberately delayed taking action in the matter. It did not take any effective steps to implement the order of this Court. On the other hand the Respondent No. 2 is encouraging the illegal act of criminal contempt of Respondent No. 1. Therefore both the respondents have committed criminal contempt of this Court. It is therefore just and necessary to take action against the respondent for disobedience of the order of this Court and it is also necessary to implement the order of this Court passed in writ petition on 23-8-1999. On the basis of the above averments, the complainant Smt. Raziy has contended that the respondents/accused have committed contempt by wilful disobedience of the order of this Court.