BAR ASSOCIATION, MANAVAR Vs. SATYENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has been filed under section 10 read with sections 15 and 16 of Contempt of Courts Act.

(2.) Brief facts are that Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate practising at Manawar, District Dhar on 16.7.2014 had appeared before the respondent Tahsildar in the matter of Hari s/o Dharamiya, r/o Vayal and sought time tol file reply. Advocates Shri Himanshu Bhakt, Shri Amit Sharma and Shri Yogendra Singh Tomar were also present in the Court room. The respondent Tahsildar questioned Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan regarding his power to appear in the case, upon it Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan has submitted his Vakalatnama, but respondent pointing his finger at Advocate refused to accept the Vakalatnama. Respondent also told that he shall hear the case at 4:00 p.m. and shall accept the Vakalatnama then only and thereafter thrown the Vakalatnama and asked Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan to get out from the Court room. The respondent also stated that he shall accept the Vakalatnama if he wishes to or he can also reject the Vakalatnama. Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate made a complaint against the respondent to the Bar Association, Manawar regarding the aforesaid incident. On receipt of the complaint the Bar Association called a General Body Meeting and it was resolved to constitute a investigating team consisting of Advocate Shri D.D. Patidar, Shri H.R. Patidar, Shri K.C. Patidar, Shri N. Choyal and Shri Siraj Khan to investigate into the matter. The investigating team recorded the statements of witnesses and also sought explanation from respondent, but he did not appear or made himself available before the investigating team. The investigating team submitted its report to the Bar Association, which is marked as Annexure P-2. The respondent too also submitted a complaint dated 16.7.2014 on 17.7.2014 before the Bar Association. The Bar Association, Manawar on consideration of the report submitted by the investigating team and complaint of the respondent concluded that respondent is obstructing the lawyer in carrying out his legal duties during continuance of judicial proceeding, hence, it amounts to criminal contempt and it was resolved by the General Body to institute contempt proceedings. The President of Bar Association, Manawar has applied for consent under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the Advocate General, State of Madhya Pradesh and the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh vide its DO No. 17168 dated 26.9.2014 gave his consent to the President, Bar Association, Manawar for instituting this petition. Thereafter this petition has been filed praying that the respondent has committed criminal contempt of Court by insulting and misbehaving with the Advocate by obstructing the administration of justice, therefore, prayed that he be suitably punished.

(3.) In reply respondent denied the allegations. It is denied that Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate has submitted his Vakalatnama before the respondent and respondent has refused to accept the Vakalatnama. It is further denied that respondent has pointed his finger at Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate and told that he shall appear in the matter at 4:00 p.m. and shall submit Vakalatnama then only. It is stated that 16.7.2014 the respondent was hearing the revenue matter in his Court at about 2:45 p.m. Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate appeared in the Court and sought time for filing reply till then no Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Shri Hari s/o Dharamiya. In the meantime Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate started shouting in the Court of respondent. When respondent was taking up some another matter, but complaint of the case and Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate had started discussing the matter in a shouting language. Respondent made both of them understand that they will not shout each other in such a fashion and maintain decorum of the Court. On this Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate continued to shout in the Court as a result of which not only the Court, but other parties present in the Court and the Court staff were disturbed. The respondent has again tried to make Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate understand that he should maintain decorum of the Court and did not shout, but he continued shouting. In the circumstances the respondent asked Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate to go out of the Court so that the decorum shall be maintained. The respondent has been found that no Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate in the matter. It is further stated that on 16.7.2014 itself respondent has sent a letter to the Bar Association and also endorsed a copy of the SDO(R), Manawar as well as the Chairman of the State Bar Council. It is stated that the respondent was performing the quasi judicial work, therefore, every Advocate including Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate was required to maintain the decorum of the Court and if it was not maintained then ask the person concerned to maintain decorum of the Court, which cannot amount to contempt of Court. It is stated that there is no factual and legal force in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. It is, therefore, prayed that the same may be dismissed with costs.