REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF EAST PUNJAB Vs. N M PATNAIK DEPUTY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE persona, Tehl Chand Ran-dhawa, Bharat Bhushan, (Miss) Amla Boy, (Miss) Janak and durlab Singh were detained in Delhi Jail under the Punjab Public Safety Act. They put in applications for writs of habeas corpus addressed to this Court and delivered them to the Jailor, delhi. The jailor on his pact forwarded these applications to the office of the Chief commissioner, Delhi, asking the Chief Commissioner to forward them to ths High Court. The applications of Tehl Chand Randhawa and Durlab Singh were received in the office of the Chief commissioner on 8th March 1949 and the applications of Bharat Bhuahan, Amla Boy and Janak were received in his office on 9th March. Tehl Chand Bandhawa was released on 29th March 1919, Bhwat Bhushan, Amla Boy and Janak were released on 7th May and Durlab Singh was release on 17th June 1919. Their applications for writs of habeas corpus were not immediately sent to this Court. They did not reach here till 1st September 1949, They were pub up before me on 19th September 1949, When they were put up I directed the Registrar to take steps for proceedings for contempt of Court. Thereupon five applications were put in by the Registrar against Mr. N, M. Patnaik, then Home Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, now Deputy secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi: Mr. P. H. B. Wilkins, Registrar to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, and Mr. Y. N. Verma, Home Secretary to the Chief commissioner, Delhi, Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of Court.

(2.) THESE five applications of the Registrar came up for hearing before us this morning. All the three respondents were present and they put in written replies as well as three affidavits. Mr. Patnaik stated that on 8th March his father-in-law died in Orissa and he applied for leave with effect from lath March and that he left his office as Home Secretary on 11th March. On 11th march, a note was put up before him in connection with the habeas corpus petitions of Durlab singh and Tehl Chand Bandhawa by the Superintendent of the Revenue and Judicial branch of his office with a suggestion that a report from the District Magistrate be called. Mr. Patnaik states that he was going on leave and there was rush of work and he was worried over the death of his father in-law and that in these circumstances it did not strike him that he should forward the petitions to the High Court without getting a report from the District Magistrate and that he was under the belief that a report of the Government should be sent with the applications to the high Court. Mr. Patnaik went on leave from llth March and did not return till 29th March. Reports on the petitions of Bnarat Bhushan, Amla Roy and Janak were similarly oalled from the district Magistrate, Delhi. Mr. Patnaik states that he was in the office as Home Secretary of the chief Commissioner, Delhi, till 13th May. He states that during this interval no papers in regard to the habeas corpus petitions were put up before him by the office and that it did not strike him that he should call for a report and send the appli-cations to this Court. He also states that on 30th April 1949 the office file was put up before him and he issued orders for the preparation of a draft for Bending a reminder to the District Magistrate to expedite the despatch of his reports. This draft was signed by him on 4th May 1949. It is quite clear from this that Mr. Patnaik was grossly negligent in his duty. It was his business to direct the office, not for the office to put up things before him. Applications for habeas corpus are urgent applications and should be sent to this Court without delay. There was no reason why a report from the District Magistrate should have been awaited before the applications could have been sent to this Court. If necessary, copies could have been taken of these applications and those copies could have been sent to the district Magistrate for his report. The fact that the District Magistrate was delay, ing the matter was a thing which should not have been condoned by the Homa Secretary, but it rather aggravated the neglect which Mr. Patnaik had shown. It is quite easy for executive authorities to delay matters by not sending their reports and the fact that the report was not being sant by the district Magistrate should have been no reason for not despatching these applications to the high Court. These applications, as has been stated above, never reached the High Court till 1st september 1949. There is not the slightest doubt that Mr. Patnaik was guilty of contempt of court. He, however, states in his affidavit that the detenus are not known to him and that he did not owe any grudge to any one of them, nor do they owe any grudge to him and has expressed his regret for the delay caused by the mistake in sending the applications to the District magistrate for a report and for not sonding these applications direct to this Court He states in his affidavit that he meant no contempt of the authority of this Court and that it was not his intention to unduly withhold the applications from this Court or to interfere with the course of justice. I accept the apology. In my opinion, it is not necessary to take any further action in this matter beyond finding him guilty.

(3.) MR. Wilkins was the Registrar of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. He states in his affidavit that he assumed charge of the office of the Home Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, on 13th May, that the applications for writs of habeas corpus from all the five persons were filed by him in his office in lieu of the Deputy Commissioner's report that in the cases of four persons they had been released and their petitions had thereby become infruofcuoua. In the case of durlab Singh be filed the papers as he would have been released by the time his application reached this Court. It will be noticed that Durlab Singh was not released till 17th June 1949. He states in his affidavit that he was Binoe-rely and honestly under the impression that as some of the detenus had been released and the other would have been released by the time the applications reached this Court there was no necessity to forward the applications to this Court. He further statea that he later learnt that it was a mistake on his part and he himself had the petitions searched out and reported his mistake to the Chief Commissioner and in order to regularize the petitions put up a draft letter for forwarding the petitions to this Court, and that he handed over the charge of the office of the Home Secretary on llth August. He submits an unconditional apology for his mistake and aaya that this mistake was due not to any mala fides but because of his ignorance of not knowing the correct procedure and requirements of law. He also states that in the last few days of May 1919 and the first week of June 1949 when the report from the office of the District Magistrate was received in his office, they were issuing orders for the release of about 900 detenus.