DALIP SINGH Vs. THAKAR RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances in which this petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act (32 of 1952) has been filed may first be noticed. For the period June 15, 1962 to June 14, 1965, Hunuman Dass brother of Dalip Singh petitioner was the lessee of sullage land and sullage water of the Municipal Committee, Aboha. A public auction for giving out the lease of the same property in respect of the next period of three years, that is, from June 15, 1965 to June 14, 1968, was held on June 7, 1965. The terms of auction of the lease were available in writing at the spot and were admittedly read over and explained to the protective bidders before the commencement of the auction. The said writing had been signed by the President, the Secretary and a member of the Municipal Committee, and also by Thakar Ram respondent and one Raja Ram, the two persons who actually gave bids at the auction. Copy of the said terms of auction has been filed a Annexure "R-12" and its translation into English as Annexure "R 12/T" with the affidavit of the petitioner. One of the terms of the auction was that a defaulter or his relative was, not permitted to bid threat. The petitioner was therefore not permitted to bid at the auction as he was said to be a relative of the defaulter at the relevant time. The highest bid of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given by the respondent. Written complaints were made about the manner in which the auction had been conducted. Written offers were also made to raise the bid to Rs. 2,60,000- and Rs. 2,70,000/- by other parties. By resolution, dated August 12, 1965, the municipality sanctioned the lease in favour of Thakar Ram despite the complaints. By order, dated August 13, 1965, the auction proceedings as well as the resolution of the Municipal Committee granting the lease to the respondent were superseded by the competent authority in exercise of its powers under Section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. In pursuance of the said order, the municipality passed a resolution, dated August 15, 1965 (Annexure 'R 6') setting aside the lease in favour of the respondent and fixing re-auction for August 20, 1965. At that stage the respondent filed Civil Writ 2292 of 1965 in this Court and impleaded Dalip Singh petitioner as respondent No. 5 therein. In the writ petition it was stated that "the only term and condition regarding the lease was that it was subject to the approval of the Committee." In paragraph 7(iv) of the writ petition it was stated as below :-

(2.) While admitting the writ petition on August 19, 1965, the Motion Bench (D. Falshaw, C.J. as he then was and Mehar Singh J., as my Lord the Chief Justice then was) stayed the auction and ordered the stay order to be communicated by telegram. On September 6, 1965, the petitioner filed his return in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 7 of which it was averred inter alia as below :-

(3.) On November 26, 1965, the present petition was then field for punishing the respondent for his having committed contempt of this Court by making false allegation in his writ petition and replication, and also for directing the filing of a complaint against the respondent under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of Penal Code read with Sections 195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One of the charges of falsehood levelled against the respondent in the contempt petition relates to the averments contained in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 7 of the affidavit of the respondent filed by way of replication. Reference has been made by counsel for the petitioner to condition No. 5 of the admitted terms of auction (Annexure "R-12/T"), which was in the following terms :-