KRISHNA GOPAL RASTOGI Vs. K L SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT would have been the end of this case has become its beginning The matter which she Corns was given so understand, may end with an apology has not and will not.

(2.) THE subject matter of this case is contempt of Court. Many cases where contempt is alleged see the end of it with retraction to the correct position followed by an unconditional apology and forgiveness had from the Court. As the end is the beginning of this case, the facts will need to be noticed in that order. Amongst certain other facts of the controversies the matter of apology was connected with indulgence sought from the Court to retract certain statements made on record in the pleadings of the opposite party. Permission to retract the statement was sought by learned Senior counsel appearing for the opposite party after the record of the case had been seen, thereadbare, upon which deliberations had been made over a protracted hearing. This indulgence was not sought right at the beginning when the return to the allegation in the contempt petition had been filed but sought after the defence of the opposite party had been presented on record by a counter affidavit and, otherwise, offered as arguments and that also after the arguments had concluded. One set of counsel appeared for the opposite party initially, represented by a senior member of the Bar who, whatever may be the reason, either withdrew from the case or may have declined to appear, THE opposite party was represented by the first set of counsel through Mr. R. N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate. Additionai Advocate, General, assisted by Mr. Shitla Prasad, Advocare Additional Chief Standing Counsel. THEy were replaced by Mr. S. N. Verma Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. G. L. Tripathi, Advocate and Standing Counsel THE reason why the first set withdrew, the Court does not know.

(3.) THE questions which arise in this contempt proceeding are what is a Court ? THE difference between the State and the State Government ? THE position of the Secretary to the Government and furthermore a Judicial (Law) Secretary and a Legal Remembrancer to the State on deputation from amongst District Judges, the subordinate judiciary ? Another aspect which will need to be considered is whether a judicial officer ought to make submissions of the nature which he has '? That any one else may will be an entirely different perspective but a person whose exclusive business is to uphold the rule of law and strive to maintain the delicate balance between three working institutions of the government and belonging to she judicial cadre, should such an officer express and declare that the High Court's administrative decisions need not be followed by the Government ? This expression of policy or otherwise, is not on record of government files, nor in any communication addressed to the High Court, but at the Bar of tile Court in a counter affidavit in writ petition. It lies as a statement sworn on an affidavit on personal knowledge, in a writ petition now decided, against which decision a Special Appeal Is pending in this Court.