SAGIR KHAN Vs. ANIL AWASTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A . preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the alleged contemners that this petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by time under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (henceforth 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1998 and obtained an interim order dated 25.5.1998 requiring the respondent in that petition not to take coercive action to remove them from gumtis occupied by them until further orders. It was alleged in this petition for contempt that despite the fact that the aforesaid order remained operative and the petitioners had not vacated, the respondents -contemners took law in their own hands with full knowledge of the order passed by the Court and took coercive action on 25.5.1999 to vacate the gumtis. It was further alleged that the respondent No.2, the Collector of Hoshangabad alongwith other contemners Anil Awasthy, the President of Municipal Council, ltarsi, Ashok Verma, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, ltarsi and Shahjad Khan, the Town Inspector Itarsi were quilty of contempt of this Court for the reason they ejected the petitioners forcibly and dispossessed them of the gumtis occupied by them by demolishing them. The contempt petition was listed on 18.7.1999. The order sheet of this Court dated 18.7.1999 indicates that it was ordered that contempt petition be listed alongwith Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1999, whereas it should have been ordered that the case be listed alongwith Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1998. The mistake was discovered on 9.8.1999 when this Court found that owing to inadvertence, a wrong petition was called from the office. The correct order for calling the original Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1998 was, therefore, passed. It was directed that the record of Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1999 is not required. Thereafter, the contempt petition was listed on 16.8.1999 alongwith Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1999. On that date the following order was passed by this Court.

(3.) IT may be noted that the order dated 16.8.1999 cannot be passed off as routine order of issuance of notice of contempt application. It records the statement of the counsel for the petitioners. It is a summary of the essence of the allegations made in the contempt petition which in effect stated that the gumtis were coercively removed by the respondents No.1 ,2,3 and 4 despite the notice of stay was served upon them by the petitioners. Thereafter, there is order to the effect to issue notice. It is an unusual order in the sense that it records the oral statement of the counsel for the petitioners and gives the summary of the accusation made in the petition of the petitioners. It is trite law that the position of a petitioner in a contempt petition is that of an informant or a relater and he cannot be said to be an aggrieved party or the complainant in the sense of a victim of an offence. The contempt jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court as an adjunct to the power of administering justice for upholding the rule of law. The order of the Courts are to be obeyed not because the Judges are always right, but for the reason, that they represent the orders of the authorities administering justice. If orders of a Court are not obeyed during their currency then the whole edifice of justice may collapse. Consequently, it is the Court that bears the responsibility of summoning a person for commission of contempt of Court. Pursuant to the duty imposed on the Court, the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner was asked if he certified to the truth of the statements made in the petition and his statement was recorded. Thereafter, the order records issue notice to the respondents No. 1,2,3 and 4 on payment of process fee within three days. The purpose of recording the statement of the counsel was to give assurance to the Court that, in fact, the respondents No. 1,2,3, and 4 have violated the order dated 25.5.1998 and the counsel had taken care to ascertain the facts stated in the petition for contempt. Further, it was for the purpose of holding the responsibility for the information given to the Court. An advocate is an officer of the Court and he owes duty to the Court as much as to his client. This is more so when he appears on behalf of a relater.