RAM RUP PANDEY Vs. R K BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') invoking the powers of this Court to punish the alleged contemners contesting opposite parties for a contempt of an order of this Court and another contempt of an injunction of the Munsif, Mirzapur, said to have been awarded on 9th of November, 1968, prohibiting the holding of an election which was to be held by opposite party No. 1, the Adhyaksha (the Collector and District Magistrate of Mirzapur), on 9th November, 1968.

(2.) SO far as the contempt of any order of this Court is concerned, no order or direction of this Court given to any of the opposite parties has been placed before me which could have been said to have been disobeyed. What is alleged by the petitioner, who is a practising lawyer in Mirzapur and a member of the Managing Committee of Babulal Jaiswal Inter College, is that opposite party No. 2, one Shankar Lal Chaurasia had filed a writ petition in this Court claiming that he and opposite party no. 3. Purshottam Jaiswal, were the nominated members of the Managing Committee. It is alleged that the right to the membership of the Managing Committee was claimed on the ground that they, once having been nominated by certain donors Messrs. Bhagirath Ram Garib, continued as nominated members irrespective of the wishes of the donors. The order on the aforesaid writ petition, of which a copy is filed as annexure 'c' to the application before me, shows that the petition was dismissed on the ground that a donor who nominates a member could withdraw the nomination at any time the donor wanted to do so. In other words, the petitioner could not claim a right which was enforcible under Article 226 of the Constitution. The right depended on the sweet-will of the donor. This Court did not decide that the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 to the application before me now, whose rights were under consideration, could not be members at all of the Managing Committee in any case whatsoever. There was no order or direction given to any party or person, the writ petition having been dismissed at the admission stage. There could, therefore, be no contempt of any order of this Court in merely holding an election on 9-11-1968.

(3.) THE second contempt, however, is alleged to consist of a disobedience of an injunction granted by the learned Munsiff of Mirzapur in a suit filed by the applicant now before me, as plaintiff in which he impleaded opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 as defendants along with four others. No copy of the actual order passed by the learned Munsiff has been filed by the applicant. It is, therefore, not possible to say what the precise terms of that injunction order were. It is also not stated that the applicant prayed for any steps, such as the appointment of a commissioner, to serve the Munsif's order immediately on opposite party No. 1 as he should have done, or that any such order for ensuring service was actually passed by the learned Munsiff. However, even assuming that there was such an order, the question arises whether the applicant should not be left to his remedy provided under Order 39, Rule 2, Sub-rule (3) of the Civil P. C. , instead of permitting him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the Act.