MALOJIRAO SHITOLE Vs. C G MATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, the petitioner prays for the issue of a rule against the non-applicants for having committed contempt of this Court by issuing a notification No. 66 dated 4. 12. 1952, published in the Extra-ordinary Gazette of 4. 12. 1952 appointing 4. 12. 1952 as the date of resumption of all Jagir lands in the State of Madhya Bharat under Section 3 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 and directing that "on and from the above date of resumption" all Jagir lands mentioned in the schedule annexed to the notification shall stand resumed to the State.

(2.) THE background of this application, briefly stated is that sometime in December 1951 the petitioner and other persons filed applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act (Act No. 28 of 1951 ). On the admission of those applications, this Court issued an order on 7. 12. 1951 restraining the State from giving effect to or acting in any manner by virtue of or under the Act, till the disposal of those petitions. The petitions were decided on 4. 12. 1952. It was held by this Court that the Act with the exception of certain provisions of Schedule 1 of the Act was valid. The petitioner was also granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The order of this Court disposing of the applications under Article 226 was pronounced at about 11. 30 a. m. on 4. 12. 1952. Immediately afterwards an application was presented to this Court on behalf of the petitioner praying that the status quo be maintained and the State be prohibited from issuing any notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act till the disposal of the appeal which the petitioner proposed to file in the Supreme Court or at least till such time within which the petitioner could obtain an order of injunction from the Supreme Court. The Advocate-General who was present in the Court at the time of the presentation of the said application, took notice of it. In order to enable the learned Advocate-General to reply to the application, we directed that the petition would be heard later in the day at 2. 30 p. m. During the interval between the presentation of the application praying for a prohibitory order, and its hearing the Government issued the notification referred to above. The application for a temporary prohibitory order was dismissed by us on the ground that we had no jurisdiction to grant the order after the disposal of the applications under Article 226. We also observed that the petition praying for an order restraining the Government from issuing any notification, under Section 3 (1) of the Act, had become infructuous as the Government had already issued the notification. The petitioner now complains that the issue of the notification constitutes a contempt of this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner firstly urged that the notification in question would in law be deemed to have come into force from the midnight of 3. 12. 1952 and that as during the midnight of 3. 12. 1952 and the pronouncement of this Court's order on 4. 12. 1952 at about 11. 30 a. m. , the prohibitory order made by this Court in 1951 was operative, the issue of the notification constituted a breach of the order issued by this Court restraining the State from issuing any notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act till the disposal of the application under Article 226. It was secondly urged that by issuing the notification the opponents 'tied down' the hands of this Court and interfered with the freedom of this Court in passing appropriate orders on the application made after the disposal of the petitions under Article 226 for a temporary order restraining the State from issuing any notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act.