P DARMARAJ Vs. A ARULDHAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern Contempt Appeal Nos. 18 of 2000, 19 of 2000, 20 of 2000, 21 of 2000 and 23 of 2000. Contempt Appeal Nos 18 and 19 of 2000 are filed by P. Dharmaraj while, Contempt Appeal Nos. 20 and 21 have been filed by one Rev. M.I. Kesari, a retired Bishop. He would be referred to as "Bishop" in the judgment for the sake of brevity. Contempt Appeal No. 23 of 2000 has been filed by Ramesh Chand Meena, who is the District Collector of Kanyakumari District. He would be referred to as "the Collector" hereinafter. The appellants have challenged the common judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, convicting the appellants for contempt of court as also the sentences passed of imprisonment and fine passed therein. The learned single Judge had disposed of Contempt Application Nos. 488 and 496 of 2000 along with Contempt Sub Application Nos. 270, 275, 276, 299, 301, 302, 306, 307, 319, 320, 321, 322, 351 and 352 of 2000.

(2.) THESE contempt proceedings were initiated by one Aruldhas, who is the applicant in Contempt Application No. 488 of 2000 as also by one Mr. Kumardhas and D. Jayaraj, who are applicants in Contempt Application No. 496 of 2000. Both the applications were filed under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 2(b) and Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. While the applicant Aruldas alleged wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 12.7.2000, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 1390 of 2000, the other applicants, viz. M/s Kumardhas and Jayaraj alleged the disobedience of the order of this court dated 12.7.2000 passed in C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000. The said two revision petitions mentioned above were disposed of by the learned single Judge (Raman, J.) of this Court, by a common order. While C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000 was preferred against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari in I.A. No. 63 of 2000 in Tr.O.P. No. 67 of 2000, C.R.P. No. 1390 of 2000 challenged the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in I.A. No. 311 of 2000 in O.S. No. 123 of 2000.

(3.) IT is an admitted position that after this order, on 19.7.2000 the Bishop declared the results of the elections and formed the Diocesan Council. The contempt applications, one out of the each civil revision petitions, have, therefore, been filed against the Bishop. According to the applicants, the Bishop has, in flagrant violation of the orders of this Court, declared the results of the elections. Two applications for contempt also came to be filed against the contemner Dharamaraj, who was declared to be the elected Secretary of the Diocesan Council and the contention is that he has acted as the Secretary though he knew that he could not have acted owing to the specific orders passed by Raman, J. in paragraph 49, which has been quoted above. An application also came to be filed against the District Collector, Kanyakumari District as it was stated that after the declaration of the results, the Bishop had sought the help of the Government machinery through the Collector and the Collector rendered the help by acknowledging the newly elected office bearers, whose results were declared by the Bishop, in contravention to the orders passed by Raman, J, in the two Civil Revision Petitions. IT is also alleged against the Collector that he has shown utter disrespect to the order passed by the High Court and has interfered with the administration of justice.