DEVKINANDAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Devkinandan, Private Assistant Secretary of the District Collector, Churu, preferred this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.RC. against the action taken by respondent No. 2 Shri Sohan Lal Bothra, Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and has prayed that the proceedings initiated by issue of notice to him be quashed and the notice itself be quashed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Shri Sohan Lal Bothra.

(3.) Shri Sohan Lal Bothra, an R.A.S. Officer, was Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. He went to hold camp court at Churu and stayed in Room No. 1 in, Ciicuit House. On 14.7.1995 the Collector Churu, under whom the petitioner was working, asked him to inform the Manager of the Circuit House to get the VIP Room and Room No. 1 cleaned. The petitioner, therefore, in compliance of direction gave a telephonic call to the office of the Circuit House. The call was attended by one Mahendra Kumar to whom the message was conveyed. Shri Darshan Singh was the Manager of the Circuit House at the relevant time. When he came, he telephoned to the petitioner and then Darshan Singh was informed about the direction given by the Collector, Churu. Darshan Singh informed that respondent No. 2 Shri Sohan Lal Bothra was staying in Room No. 1 of the Circuit House. Thereupon the petitioner replied that he would inform the Collector. On 15.7.1995 when the petitioner was working in his office, the respondent No. 2 came himself and delivered a notice to him. The notice, interalia, states that the petitioner asked Darshan Singh whether Sohan Lal Bothra was entitled to stay in Room No. 1 of the Circuit House and thereby committed the contempt of court. The notice also mentions to show cause why action should not be taken under Contempt of Court Act/under Sec. 228 of IPC. The petitioner has challenged this notice as well as the proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 2.