RAJ KUMAR Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a petition for drawing contempt proceedings. Contempt Petition No. 239/98 was entertained and notices were issued. In response to the notices, alleged contemners i.e. D.P. Dubey, Collector Rewa, S.D. Dwivedi, S.D.O. Sirmour, district Rewa and R.K. Pandey Chief Executive Officer are present. Their present may be noted.

(2.) THE alleged contemners have tendered their apology and have also filed reply. Learned counsel representing them submitted that the applicant has committed fraud and has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as this Court in Writ Petition No. 4632/97 on 21.11.97 passed the following order and this order though it was an exparte order, but it was not communicated as it was passed by this Court:

(3.) IT is well established principle of law that one who flees justice is not entitled to seek justice. In the present case a fraud is played. Learned counsel for the applicant argued the matter but he did not realise the fact regarding his obligation to the court. He is expected to be fair with the Court. He tried to justify the order and also submitted that what has been filed with the reply was not the order which the applicant has produced. He has not stated that he filed a certified copy of the order of this Court. He only tried to justify his own conduct. A lawyer has dual obligations; one is towards his client and the other is towards the Court and these two obligations can be discharged only by adopting element of fairness.