DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAJNANDGAON CONTEMNER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present contempt proceedings against contemner, Arun Kshetrapal, District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, arise out of his refusal to comply with this Court's order dated 1-8-1975 in a pending habeas corpus petition and as a consequence of a crash wireless message dated 6-8-1975 addressed by him to the Registrar of this Court in that connection.

(2.) A detenu, Vidhya Bhushan Thakur, has challenged the validity of his detention passed by the contemner under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, in the habeas corpus petition (M. P. No. 700 of 1975) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the contemner is a party as respondent No. 1. This Court vide its order dated 1-8-1975 in that petition had directed production of the detenu in Court on 8-8-1975 which was the date of hearing. But the contemner vide his crash wireless message dated 68-1975 addressed to the Advocate-General and a copy to the Registrar of this Court, expressed his inability to obey the order of this Court in view of the general order issued by the State Government under Subsection (2) of Section 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, excluding any person or class of persons from the operation of Section 267 of the said Code. The wireless message was brought to our notice as desired by the contemner. On 8-8-1975, we ordered issue of notice to the contemner, Arun Kshetrapal, District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (No. 70 of 1971) and fixed 13-8-1975 as the date for the appearance of the contemner.

(3.) ON 13-8-1975, the contemner appeared in this Court, but on a prayer being made by his counsel the hearing was adjourned for the next day, i. e. , 14-8-1975, as time was required for filing of a reply, which was submitted in the form of an affidavit together with some annexures. In reply, the contemner pleaded for discharge of the rule nisi on the grounds that neither he committed any disobedience of the order of this Court nor the tenor of the wireless message constituted contempt of this Court.