Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1992 DIGILAW 217 (SC)

M. Manihar Singh v. H. Borobabu Singh

1992-02-27

J.S.VERMA, K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, S.C.AGRAWAL

body1992
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed in C.A. No.4516/91 for initiating a proceeding for Contempt of Court against the respondents and for consequential orders. The respondent No.I has been impleaded in his capacity as the Authority under Para 6 of the 10th Schedule to the Constitution. Let the description in the petition be now corrected accordingly so as to distinguish it from his other capacity as Speaker. There are certain other prayers also included in the contempt petition. Today, the petitioners have prayed that some further orders may have to be passed by this Court for the full implementation of the judgment in the civil appeal. These matters will be considered separately. 2. When this application was placed on the board on 31.01.92, Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the respondents No. I and 2 assured the Court that both the respondents were anxious to respect and obey the orders of the Court and to cooperate in implementing them effectively and that they shall see that these orders are followed and respected not only in terms but also in spirit. We directed that this assurance should be given additionally in writing separately by the two respondents in the form of affidavits. The case was accordingly adjourned and 2 respondent No.2 was directed to be present in person on the next date. 3. On 13.02.92 the respondent No.2 filed the affidavit as indicated on his behalf but so far as respondent No.1 was concerned Mr. Bhattacharya, stated that he was not aware of the whareabouts of the respondent no.1 on that date and, therefore, additional time be given for filing his affidavit as he had been informed that he (the respondent No.1) was not well. We is accordingly adjourned the matter to the next Tuesday and made a specific order that the affidavit must be filed latest by the time the Court assembled on next Tuesday and that no further adjournment would be granted. 4. The respondent No.] sent an affidavit dated 14.02.92 sworn at imphal which was filed on 18.02.92 through his counsel which did not appear to be consistent with the assurance given on his behalf. This aspect was pointed out to the learned counsel and the case was further adjourned to the 20th February, 1992 to enable compliance. On 20.02.92 Mr. 4. The respondent No.] sent an affidavit dated 14.02.92 sworn at imphal which was filed on 18.02.92 through his counsel which did not appear to be consistent with the assurance given on his behalf. This aspect was pointed out to the learned counsel and the case was further adjourned to the 20th February, 1992 to enable compliance. On 20.02.92 Mr. R.K. Garg, learned senior advocate who had earlier represented the respondent No.I in the civil appeal appeared and stated that the respondent had been advised to file a short affidavit drawn up to convey the correct attitude and showed a draft to us, which appeared to be satisfactory. Learned Counsel was hopeful that such an affidavit would be filed if the case was adjourned to today. Accordingly, we once again adjourned the matter. Today, Mr. R.K., Garg is not present. 5. Mr. Bhattacharya has today filed another affidavit sworn by the respondent No.1 at Imphal on 25.02.92 which does not improve the position. 6. The learned Attorney General who had appeared in the civil appeal and now at our request appears in the present proceeding states that he has examined the matter and is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is left with no option except to commence a proceeding for contempt of Court against respondent No.1. We have also heard Mr. Bhandare. Mr. Bhattacharya who has been representing the respondents No.I and 2 at this stage stated that he should be permitted to withdraw from the case so far respondent No.1 is concerned since he finds it difficult to defend him. He states that he will continue to represent respondent No.2. 7. We have considered the entire circumstances and in our view a prima facie case has been made out for starting a proceeding for contempt of Court against the respondent No. I Dr. H. Borobabu Singh for his wilful disobedience to the orders, judgment and directions of this Court in the civil appeal. 8. Issue notice returnable on the 24th March, 1992. The notice shall indicate that the respondent No.1 should be present in person on that date in Court when the case is called out. Respondent No.2 should also be present in person and he will be informed accordingly by Mr. Bhattacharya. 9. 8. Issue notice returnable on the 24th March, 1992. The notice shall indicate that the respondent No.1 should be present in person on that date in Court when the case is called out. Respondent No.2 should also be present in person and he will be informed accordingly by Mr. Bhattacharya. 9. Let the Registry prepare the notice in the appropriate form according to the Supreme Court Rules and take steps forthwith. So far as the other prayers, made on behalf of the petitioners are concerned, they may file a separate application for this purpose which shall be placed on the Board on the 6th of March, 1992.