JITAN CHOWDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding for contempt is against respondent No. 2, R. N. Jaiswal, who was Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms, Siwan, and Respondent No. 3, Ramchandra Ram, who was Circle Officer, Hussainganj, in the District of Siwan, at the relevant time. Jitan Chawdhry and others, who will be referred to hereinafter as the petitioners, filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1073 of 1976, for quashing the following orders :

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 appeared and filed a joint show cause and in the very first paragraph both have tendered unqualified apology for having done or said anything which may be in derogation of the dignity of this Court. From the show cause it appears that respondent no. 3 actually received the notice sent by this Court on 8th May, 1976. Respondent no. 3 has denied having gone to the village on 5th May 1976 or having made any demolition on that day. He has alleged that in pursuance of the directions of the superior authorities on 27th April 1976, he removed encroachments from plot no. 180 made by the petitioners and others, namely, Ram Lal Choudhary and Horil Choudhary. Ram Lal Choudhary, who has filed C. W. J. C. No. 1125 of 1976, has admitted in the writ petition about the removal of encroachment on the 27th April, 1976, from plot no. 180. It is also stated that he informed the S. D. O about this fact on 29.4.76. Respondent no. 3 has further stated that he went on 3.5.76 at incharge of armed force and did not remove any encroachment from plot no. 180. After that he did not go to the village on 5,5.76 nor he removed any encrochment from plot no, 172. It is also stated that the proceeding with regard to plot no. 172 has not yet been concluded so that any encroachment could be removed from this plot. These facts, however, have been denied in an affidavit sworn by Wakil Chaudhary although in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder it is state 1 that the date for removing the encroachment from plot no. 172 was fixed as 27.4.76. It may be stated that the learned Standing Counsel No. 4 has produced the records of the case relating to plot no. 172 from which it appears that up to the 5th of May, 1976, the proceeding with regard to plot no. 172 had not concluded and, therefore, the question of removal of encroachment from plot no 172 could not arise till that date.

(3.) What casts a grave doubt and the assertion made by respondents 2 and 3 is their conduct and the delay which was caused in communicating the stay order of this court to respondent no. 3. It is stated in the supplementary affidavit to the show cause petition of respondents nos. 2 and 3 filed on 16.9.1976 that the stay of this court which was received on 30.4.76 was sent on 1.5.76 along with the office note to the Sub-divisional Officer for necessary directions and it was returned from the office of the S, D. O. on 3.5 76 with a direction to communicate it to all concerned on the same day. On that day the file was sent to the office with the direction to comply with the orders of the Sub-divisional Officer and to inform the Circle Officer immediately. The office of respondent no. 2 took 2 to 3 days to type out the copies of the C. W. J. C. petition with annexures and the stay order to be communicated to respondent no. 3 and was sent by letter dated 6.5.76 which was received by respondent no. 3 on 8.5.76. It is an admitted position that Hussainganj is only 12 kilometres from Siwan and is connected by pucca road on which buses ply. There cannot be any plausible reason why two days would be taken in covering a distance of 12 kilometres, be it by foot, cycle or any other mode of transport. This is rather shocking to the conscience of any responsible person. We also do not find any justification for referring the matter to the Sub-divisional Officer for his directions on the ground that the order of respondent no. 2 in such matters have to be confirmed by the Sub-divisional Officer. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that respondent no. 2 has office establishment and staff of his own and respondent no. 2 is under no obligation to obtain orders of the Sub-divisional Officer for communicating the stay order passed by this court. The stay order of this court served on respondent no. 2 was meant to be served on the officers concerned and not dependant on the Sub-divisional Officer or the District Magistrate agreeing to its communication. An officer taking such a view obviously does so at his own peril. It is surprising that two days would have been taken in the office of the Sub-divisional Officer for his approval for communication of the stay order of this court and even after it was received, 3 days should have been taken in the office of respondent no. 2 for typing out the whole thing. The manner in which the matter has been dealt with in the office of respondent no. 2 and the inordinate time taken in the notice being sent to Hussainganj, a distance of 12 kilometres only, do create a very strong suspicion against the respondents acting bonafide in matters of demolition and cast a very serious doubt about the veracity of the case set up by them. Ordinarily a litigant could not be expected to file a writ petition, obtain stay order and take it by special messenger on 29th April, 1976, if the encroachment in question was already removed on 27 th April, 1976, although we are not for a moment suggesting that such thing cannot happen. We would have got the matter, enquired into in view of the seriousness of the matter but as more than two years have elapsed we do not think that any useful purpose will be served by getting the matter enquired into and more so in view of the fact that the contemners have offered unqualified apology. We would accept the unqualified apology offered by them with a warning to them to be careful in future and not to repeat the laches which they have shown in the instant case in serving the stay order of this Court.