GHANSHAYAM DEV Vs. RANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. Raghu Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also Mr. D.S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length.

(2.) FALL out of certain events that culminated in the initiation of the contempt proceedings on an application commenced by Dr. Ghanshayam Dev in resume may be noticed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the Government Order No. 537 -GR/HME of 1991 dated 27.6.1991, whereby the petitioner alongwith five other Doctors including respondent herein came to be appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Radio Diagnosis and Imaging in Government Medical College, Jammu and Srinagar, Dr. Ranbir Singh respondent filed writ petition SWP 598/91 in Jammu Wing of the High Court, in assailing the correctness of the aforesaid order and seeking a mandamus for his placement in the Govt. Medical College, Jammu. However, another writ petition SWP No. 757/91 was filed by the respondent herein in the Srinagar Wing of the High Court on 8.7.1991. In both these petitions respondent/writ petitioner had sought the quashing of the Government order, referred above by issuing writ of certiorari and further commanding the respondents for posting of the writ -petitioner as Lecturer in the Govt. Medical College, Jammu instead of Govt. Medical College, Srinagar by means of writ of mandamus. Respondent in subsequent writ petition filed in the Srinagar Wing of the High Court made a false statement and filed an affidavit averring therein that he had not filed any other petition or proceedings in respect of the matter in controversy. Learned Single Judge before whom application for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent was filed found that making a false statement before the Court on affidavit filed amounts to a criminal contempt. In relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757. Learned Single Judge also found that prima facie the respondent has committed the contempt and issued a rule to the respondent -contemner, to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of the Court.