NARINDER KAUR GILL Vs. H. S. HANSPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has been placed before us on a reference from a learned Single Judge dated March 27, 1992.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the material facts are that one Shri Gamdoor Singh Son of Narain Singh died on July 28, 1990, leaving behind his widow Smt. Bakshish Kaur petitioner No. 2 one son Amarjit Singh respondent No. 4 and a daughter Smt. Narinder Kaur petitioner No. 1. He also left, inter alia agricultural land at village Bhago, Tehsil and District Bhatinda and village Sheikhpura, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. Mutation No. 11347 was entered on May 21, 1990, by the Patwari. Amarjit Singh, son of the deceased, propounded a registered will dated September 1, 1987. The genuineness and the validity of the Will was contested by the widow and daughter of the deceased. A civil suit is pending between the parties in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Bathinda. The case of the petitioners i. e. the daughter and widow of Shri Gamdoor Singh is that Amarjit Singh, son of the deceased, persuaded Shri H. S. Hanspal, Member of Parliament, respondent No. 1, to write a letter Annexure P-1 dated October 22, 1990, to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, with regard to the sanction of the mutation in favour of Amarjit Singh and this amounted to criminal contempt as defined in section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Further case of the petitioners is that A C. First Grade, who decided the contested mutation, was a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 10 of the Act and the respondents were liable to be proceeded against and punished for contempt of Court. Arrayed as respondents were Shri H. S. Hanspal, Member, Rajya Sabha, Shri D. S. Guru, Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, Shri Ajaib Singh Sra, A. C. Ist Grade, Rampura Phul, and Amarjit Singh, son of the deceased.,

(3.) THE stand taken by Shri H. S. Hanspal respondent No. I is that the letter in question was not written to influence the decision of the authorities It was written only to avoid delay and to expedite the proceedings relation to sanctioning of mutation He further stated that the said proceedings were not judicial proceedings but were administrative in nature. Shri D. S. Guru, who was Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, at the relevant time, in his affidavit stated that the letter in question, a correct photostat copy of which was filed with his reply as Annexure A-1, had been received and was duly entered in the General Receipt Register at serial No. 204 dated October 31, 1990 On the same day it was marked by him to District Revenue Officer in routine. In turn, the District Revenue Officer forwarded a copy of the letter to SDO (Civil) Bathinda as well as SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo, both sub-divisions of district Bathinda, requesting for a report to be sent to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, vide his endorsement dated November 23, 1990. SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo forwarded the letter to the Kaungo Halqa for appropriate action and report. The Kanungo marked the same to Halqa Patwari. The Patwari in his report dated December 26, 1990, stated that the mutation having been contested was sent to SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo, on August 21, 1990 for necessary decision along with the said report, the papers were sent to, the office of SDO (Civil) Talwandi Sabo, who directed on January 14,1991, that the papers be placed on the record of the case. Accordingly, the original letter along with various endorsements and report was placed on the record of the mutation case on January 14, 1991.