ADVOCATE GENERAL SIKKIM GANGTOK Vs. ASHWANI KHURANA CONTEMNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Contempt proceedings were initiated against Ashwani Khurana, Chief Executive, M/s. K. and Co., 4-Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi-100048 on the motion having been made by the learned Advocate General, for the Contemnor having written a letter dated 13/11/2000 to the Chief Justice of the High Court, stating that the said letter had been sent by the Contemnor whose certain matters pertaining to Sikkim Lotteries had earlier been decided by the Chief Justice and that the letter gravely scandalises the High Court with the sole objective of lowering the majesty and dignity of the Court and is also intended to influence the Chief Justice with regard to any proceedings that may be brought before the Court. Body of the letter dated 13/11/2000, reads as under :

(2.) In response to the notice, the Contemnor filed an affidavit dated 23/02/2001, tendering unconditional and unquialified apology. He further stated that the letter was intended to be sent to the Chief Minister of Sikkim (with a copy to the High Court for information), but was mistakenly addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. Thereafter, one telegram dated 15/11/2000, which had also been received from the Contemnor was placed on the record. A copy thereof was furnished to the Contemnor. Thereupon, the Contemnor filed another affidavit dated 28/02/2001, again tendering unconditional and unqualified apology and stating that the telegram was sent under the Contemnor's instructions by his employee to seek consideration of the Hon'ble High Court by way of Public Interest Petition. Thereafter, another affidavit dated 13/03/2001 was filed by the Contemnor undertaking and assuring the Court that he shall not commit any act of contempt, civil or criminal, nor shall he do any act, deed or thing that would tantamount to commission of such offence.

(3.) We have heard the learned Advocate General and also Anmole Prasad, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Contemnor. We are not at all satisfied that the letter dated 13/11/2000 was meant for the Chief Minister. The fact that subsequently also, he sent a telegram addressed to the Chief Justice is in itself evidence of the fact that he was in the habit of addressing communication to the Chief Justice with regard to his lottery busienss and that he intentionally sent the letter dated 13/11/2000. There could also be no justification for sending a copy of the letter dated 13/11/2000, as alleged. In would be highly deplorable if a litigant or a prospective litigant communicates to the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court with respect to his litigation. We also do not believe his version that the telegram was sent for consideration by the High Court as a Public Interest Petition. The Contemnor must have known as a seasoned litigant, having access to competent legal advice, that in matters relating to tenders where he himself wants to make a bid, no petition lies by way of public interest and, even if he chooses to believe that such a petition lies, the Contemnor being a person not belonging to poor strata of society could file a regular petition in the usual way and not by means of a letter.