ARUN H MEHTA Vs. MAHESH HARSHADRAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no.4 had filed one public interest litigation petition, being Spl. Civil application no.2044/96 alleging corruption, illegalities and irregularities carried out by the office of the Labour Court, Labour Commissioner, Chief Factory Inspector and Industrial Courts, in collusion with the owners of the factories. As alleged, he had made representations before the dignatories present in one Labour Laws Conference held at Rajkot. In the petition, it was prayed for direction to take necessary action against those officers. Said public interest litigation petition came to be dismissed summarily. Respondent no.4 instead of pursuing legal remedy issued the press note which came to be published in the issue of 25.4.96 of Gujarati daily 'Bindu'. Said issue was distributed in the Bar room of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Assocation, Ahmedabad.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Mr.A.H. Mehta, having read said issue of daily Bindu brought to the notice of this court the news item published in Gujarati Daily 'Bindu', owned by respondent no.1, published by respondent no.3 and edited by respondent no.2, wherein a Press note issued by respondent no.4 by way of this petition filed on April 30, 1996, alleging that news item amounts to contempt of court.

(3.) The petition came up for admission hearing on 1.5.96 and was adjourned to 2.5.96. On 2.5.96, this court (Coram: J.M. Panchal and H.R.Shelat JJ.) issued suo motu rule against the respondents in view of the facts stated in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the petition. Rule was made returnable on 20.6.96. Along with the notice of rule, charges framed against the respective respondents were also served. On 20.6.96, it appears that one of the respondents Mr.R.K.Thapa was not served and, therefore, a fresh notice was ordered to issue to be served through the Police making it returnable on 5.7.96. Thereafter, on 5.7.96 said respondent appeared and the matter was adjourned to 22.7.96, which was again adjourned to 2.8.96. It appears that the matter was not notified on that day but appeared on Board on 3.8.96. On 3.8.96, respondents nos.1 to 3 submitted their reply. By the said reply, they pleaded guilty, expressed regret and prayed for mercy. They have tried to explain the circumstances under which the said Press Note given by respondent no.4 came to be published. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have also annexed the xerox copy of the press note received by them from and duly signed by respondent no.4. On 3.8.96, the matter was adjourned to 5.8.96 and again it was adjourned to 12.8.96 at the request of respondent nos.1 to 3. On 12.8.96, as respondent no.4, though duly served, did not remain present, this court ordered to issue non-bailable warrant against him and made the same returnable on 26.8.96. We may make it clear that the previous Bench had ordered to issue bailable warrant on 22.7.96 which was served on respondent no.4 on 29.7.96 and still respondent no.4 had not remained present before the court. This court, therefore, had issued non-bailable warrant on 12.8.96 and the matter was fixed on 26.8.96. However, on that very day, after this court passed the order to issue non-bailable warrant, respondent no.4 appeared before the court, made a request to cancel the warrant and grant time to file affidavit-in-reply. A request was also made by learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3 to grant them time, as they would also like to file additional affidavit, to tender their apology in rather more clear words. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to 6.9.96. On 6.9.96, respondent no.4 filed his written defence with as many as 25 annexures and the matter was adjourned to 10.9.96 for further hearing in the matter. On 6.9.96, respondent nos.1 to 3 have also filed their additional affidavit tendering unconditional apology.