H SYAMA SUNDARA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present proceedings for contempt have been initiated against the petitioner, who appears in person, pursuant to our orders dated 5th October, 2006. In the course of proceedings held on the said date, Mr.B.L.Wali, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 drew our attention to a notice dated 28th April, 2006 issued by the petitioner, Mr.H.Syama Sundara Rao to Mr.Wali. In the said notice, the petitioner levelled a series of allegations against the counsel for the respondent and cast aspersions on him. The notice issued by the petitioner states that the counsel has made a mockery of the judiciary and the High Court; has indulged in grave professional misconduct and has deliberately misled the High Court. In the last para of the notice, the petitioner has stated that he gives three days' time to the counsel to take corrective steps, failing which the petitioner shall initiate appropriate action against the counsel before the High Court or before the Bar Council of Delhi. On perusal of the aforementioned notice issued by the petitioner, this court issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of court proceedings for violation of and obstruction of the Courts of Justice. The petitioner was called upon to file his reply within one week and the matter was adjourned to 16th October, 2006.

(2.) As the court has taken action on its own motion in the present case, the nature of contempt of which the petitioner was prima facie found guilty, was specifically put to him to enable him to make his submissions and file his reply to show cause in the said context.

(3.) On 16th October, 2006, the petitioner justified his action of issuing notice to Mr.B.L. Wali, Advocate and stated that he had filed his reply to the show cause notice and at the same time claimed that he had already apologized to the Advocate. A perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner makes it apparent that the apology, if any, tendered by him was far from unqualified and in fact in the reply to the notice to show cause, he has not only justified his action referred to hereinabove, but has further elaborated some of the statements made against the Advocate for the respondent, which as culled out from his reply, are in the following manner: