STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KAMAL PRASAD SHAKYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of the writ appeal bearing No.170/12 preferred by the appellant Rajendra Singh Saluja against the respondents/State challenging validity of the order dated 21/3/12 passed by the writ bench of this court, an application (I.A.No.2652/12) was moved on his behalf through counsel Shri Pawan Dwivedi bringing to the notice of the court hearing the appeal regarding the act committed while making allegations by Ramesh Malviya, President Yuva Parishad, Komal Prasad Shakya, Mahamantri and K.L. Jatav President/Retired Additional Collector in a press conference which was published in the daily newspaper of the area. The letterhead from the Office of the Anusuchit Jati-Janjati Sangharsh Parishad Madhya Pradesh Guna, which is a part and parcel of the alleged release note duly signed by the aforesaid is also placed on the record alongwith the said application. Thus, as per the applicant's learned counsel Shri Dwivedi, the action of those persons is apparently against the majesty of the law, which requires initiation of contempt proceedings against them. Said application came up for hearing before the bench on 19/4/12 and while taking cognizance in the matter, the court quoted exact wordings of the alleged press release note in the order-sheet itself, which are reproduced below:-

(2.) PURSUANT to the directions of this court dated 19th April 2012 in Writ Appeal No. 170/2012 (Rajendra Singh Saluja Vs. State of M.P. and others), the contempt case was registered. Show cause notices to the contemners to remain present before the court were issued to them. On putting appearance by the contemners, the Registry of this court was directed to provide with them all such documents and papers on which the contempt case was registered. On their request, Shri C.P. Singh, Advocate was appointed as an Amicus Curiae. On the request of the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on their behalf, period of three weeks' was granted file reply to show cause notices. Contemners were also directed to remain present before the court to answer in response to show cause notices, if they so desired.

(3.) IN the case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of U. P. (AIR 2011 SC 2275), the Hon. Apex court held as under:-