Honble CALLA, J.—A Civil Revision Petition i.e. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 585/1991, Rajasthan Sports Council & Ors. vs. Aam Janta Shaher, Jaipur & Ors. was listed before the Single Bench of Justice R.S. Kejriwal on 18/9/1991. In this revision petition, respondent Radha Mohan Lal claims to espouse the cause of general public in the dispute with the Rajasthan Sports Council with regard to the alleged destroying of an ancient pucca tar road under the nomenclature of "Shri Govind Deoji Ka Rasta". Respondent Shri Sua Lal Yadav is appearing as counsel of Radha Mohan Lal in this revision petition. On, 19/9/1991, Justice R.S. Kejriwal recorded as under placed the matter before Honble the Chief Justice: — "S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 585/1991, "19-9-1991. Rajasthan State Sports Council and others vs. Aam Janta, Jaipur was fixed of final disposal, in admission before the Court on 18/9/1991. On that day, the non-petitioner Radha Mohan with his counsel Shri S.L. Yadav was present and they submitted an application. In para 4 of that application, they mentioned certain words which amounts to criminal contempt and as such the matter should be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for constituting Division Bench for initiating proceedings against the contemners under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Extra copy of the application duly signed by the aforesaid persons submitted by them, may also be placed for perusal of Honble the Chief Justice." Sd/- (R.S. KEJRIWAL, J.)." Thereupon Honble Chief Justice constituted this Division Bench for this D.B. Contempt Petition No. 3184/1991 and the matter came up before us for the first time on 26/9/1991. Shri S.L. Yadav and Shri Radha Mohan Lal appeared in the Court in person on their own and referred to the application dated 18/9/91 filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and mentioned that Radha Mohan Lal and other non-petitioners in the revision petition had also moved a complaint against Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal the Chief Justice Shri S.L. Yadav gave out that he did not have a copy of the complaint and it was lying with the Honble Chief Justice. It was, therefore, directed on 26/9/91 that the copy of the complaint may be produced on the next date of hearing (9.10.91) and be tagged with this file. Justice R.S. Kejriwal the Chief Justice Shri S.L. Yadav gave out that he did not have a copy of the complaint and it was lying with the Honble Chief Justice. It was, therefore, directed on 26/9/91 that the copy of the complaint may be produced on the next date of hearing (9.10.91) and be tagged with this file. Accordingly, copy of the complaint was annexed with the file of this contempt case by the Registry. (2) Reference to this complaint was also made in para 4 of this application dated 18/9/91 purporting to be under Rule 65 of the Rules of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and the contents thereof are reproduced as under: — "In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 585/91. Rajasthan Sports Council & Ors. vs. Aam Janta Shaher, Jaipur & Ors. (fixed for admission on 18/9/1991 before Honble R.S. Kejriwal, J.) S.B. Civil Misc. Application under Rule 65 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan for causing the above case listed before an appropriate bench of this Court. Honble Shri K.C. Agrawal and his other Companion Judges of this Honble Court. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS. This application is most humbly submitted on behalf of non-petitioner Shri Radha Mohan Lal on the following amongst other grounds: — 1. That since 1984, the petitioners have regularly been causing into great harassment to the religious minded citizens of this country and the countries abroad who use to visit now and then the world known temple of Shri Govindeoji Maharaj, locating in the heart of the world famous city of Jaipur within Chowkri Sharhad, by destroying ancient Pakka Darner Road under nomenclature of "Shri Govind Deoji Ka Rasta." and creating unwarranted obstruction by constructing illegal walls, gates etc. and by locking such gates at hours of Govind Darshan during odd night hours, to the utter mental torture of "Dharshanarthes." 2. That on account of the above public harassment the following public interest litigation writ petition were filed on the same subject of public way to the above temple in Chougan. and by locking such gates at hours of Govind Darshan during odd night hours, to the utter mental torture of "Dharshanarthes." 2. That on account of the above public harassment the following public interest litigation writ petition were filed on the same subject of public way to the above temple in Chougan. (i) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1770/86 decided by Honble M.B. Sharma J. on 8/5/87 and (ii) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2802/87 decided by DB of this High Court constituted of Honble Suresh Kumar J. & Honble Farooq Hassan J. (iii) That apart from it, a representative civil suit in the form of Public interest litigation was filed because the petitioners did not abide by the order of this High Court in the above writ petition but rather destroyed the above old Pakka Damber Road during stay of the Courts of law. The above civil revision arose out of the above public litigation suit on the same subject- matter with the same object of course with an insignificant variation regarding disobedience, hence this falls under the scope of R. 65 of the above Rules and deserves to be listed for admission and hearing before the Bench constituted either of Honble M.B. Sharma J. or before Honble Farooq Hassan J. or before D.B. constituted of either of the above Honble Judge. 3. That apart from it, the undersigned has been informed by his client-Shri Radha Mohan Lal Vakil Ex. Chairman of the Municipal Council, Jaipur, that he along with other non-petitioners have moved a complaint in writing against Honble Shri R.S. Kejriwal to the Honble Chief Justice requesting him to list the above revision before a Bench of which Honble Shri R.S. Kejriwal is not a member as they have reasonable grounds to believe that no impartial Justice would be imparted from this Bench. In the light of the above exceptional and extra ordinary facts and circumstances of the matter the above revision may kindly be allowed to be listed before a Bench not constituted of Honble Mr. Justice Kejriwal as the non-petitioners are known to have lost faith in this Bench for reasons obvious. In case the above revision is not allowed to be listed before another Bench the applicant may be allowed sufficient time to approach Supreme Court for transfer of this case. Justice Kejriwal as the non-petitioners are known to have lost faith in this Bench for reasons obvious. In case the above revision is not allowed to be listed before another Bench the applicant may be allowed sufficient time to approach Supreme Court for transfer of this case. Humble Petitioner (Sd/- Radha Mohan Lal) Through Council: Sd/- S.L. Yadav." (3) Rule 65 of the Rules of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan is reproduced as under:— "65. No application to the same effect or with the same object as a previous application upon which a Bench has passed any order other than an order of reference to another Judge or Judges, shall, except by way of appeal, ordinarily be heard by other Bench. The application when presented by or on behalf of the person by whom or on whose behalf such previous application was made shall give the necessary particulars of such previous application, the nature and date of the order passed thereon and the name or names of the Judge or Judges by whom such order was passed." (4) On the next date, Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of Radha Mohan Lal and sought time to inspect the file and therefore the matter was posted for 25.10.91. Thereafter the matter came up before the Court on 6.2.92 and on this date Shri B.L. Sharma, counsel for Shri Radha Mohan Lal gave out that he never had any intention of showing any disregard to the Honble Judge. He has highest regards for the Honble Judges of the High Court and sought time to file unconditional apology in writing. At this time on 6.2.92 Shri Radha Mohan Lal was also present in person before the Court. Later on no apology was filed and on 13/5/1992, Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma counsel for Shri Radha Mohan Lal gave out that he wanted to withdraw his power on behalf of Radha Mohan Lal. On this date i.e. 13/5/1992 Shri Radha Mohan Lal had presented an application dated 13/5/92 in the Registry which was signed by him. Contents of para 1 & 2 of this application dated 13/5/1992 are reproduced as under: — "1. On this date i.e. 13/5/1992 Shri Radha Mohan Lal had presented an application dated 13/5/92 in the Registry which was signed by him. Contents of para 1 & 2 of this application dated 13/5/1992 are reproduced as under: — "1. That the above contempt petition was listed before this Honble Bench on 6.2.92 and undersigned learned counsel Shri B.L. Sharma opened his version by saying that he had not by them examined the record of the case, however he added uninstructed that the undersigned has high regards for the High Court Judges, to this their Lordships required him to submit undersigneds unconditional apology in writing for which he sought time. 2. That as a matter of fact Shri B.L. Sharma Advocate was unaware of the enclosed application dated 17.1.92 which the undersigned had already filed on 17.1.92 raising specific questions to be referred to larger Bench. If Shri B.L. Sharma had known the facts and questions narrated in the enclosed application he would not have made the above uninstructed version, because as per enclosed application it is yet to be decided as to who are the real contemners in this case." (5) This application dated 13.5.92 was referred as interim reply on the next date i.e. 13.7.92. It may be observed here that a copy of the application dated 17.1.92 was an enclosure with the application dated 13.5.92 but this application dated 17.1.92 is said to have been presented not in these proceedings, but in the Revision Petition No. 585/91. (6) We then considered the contents of the application dated 18/9/1991, filed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 585/1991 (Rajasthan Sports Council & Ors. vs. Aam Janta Shaher, Jaipur & Ors.) under the signatures of Radha Mohan Lal and Shri S.L. Yadav and, taking note of the contents of Para 4 of this application, ordered to issue notice to Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal as to why they should not be punished for committing the criminal contempt within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by moving the application dated 18.9.1991, as aforesaid. Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal, who were present in the Court accepted the notice. The Registry was directed to make available to Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal the copies of the order-sheet dated 13/5/1992 and the documents mentioned therein. Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal, who were present in the Court accepted the notice. The Registry was directed to make available to Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal the copies of the order-sheet dated 13/5/1992 and the documents mentioned therein. On 13/7/1992, it was given out by Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal that they had not received the copies as mentioned in the order-sheet dated 13/5/1992 and, therefore, the matter was posted for 21/7/1992. On 16/7/1992 i.e. in between 13.7.92 and 21.7.92 Shri S.L. Yadav also filed his Vakalatnama dated 15.7.92 entering appearance as the counsel for Shri Radha Mohan Lal in these proceedings. Copies were then made available and, when the matter came up before the Court on 21/7/1992, it was given out that all the documents, as per the order dated 13/5/1992 had been received and both the respondents requested for three weeks time to file reply. Thereafter on 9/10/1992 further time was sought to file the reply, which was granted and, the matter came up before the Court on 3/11/92. No reply was filed and all that was filed by Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal is the application dated 2/11/92, whether it is called a reply or an application to withdraw the notice of contempt. Request was made on behalf of Shri R.M. Lodha that the matter may be fixed in the month of January, 1993 on account of illness of Shri R.M. Lodha. Thereupon the matter was posted for arguments on 2/12/92, on which date the arguments were heard in part and the statement of Radha Mohan Lal was recorded on his own request. The arguments were finally heard and concluded on 3/12/1992. (7) It may be mentioned that during the Pendency of this contempt petition, certain applications to which the reference has been made as above were filed by Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal on 26/9/1991, 13/5/1992, 21/7/1992 and 2/11/1992 and, we may first deal with these applications which were moved in succession either to seek an exception of this Bench or to get these contempt proceedings deferred or placed in abeyance. (8) Application dated 26/9/1991:- It is captioned as "Objection application raising preliminary objection regarding constitution of this D.B." In this application dated 26/9/1991 as was presented by Shri S.L. Yadav and signed by Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal, a prayer was made that this Bench may take notice of the fact that Shri S.L. Yadav, Advocate had filed a D.B. contempt Petition on 12/3/1991 against six contemners including Justice I.S. Israni and Justice M.R. Calla (both Judges of this Division Bench) and that this Contempt petition was entered at Sr. No. 1175/1991 on 12/3/1991 in the Stamp Reporters office and was lying in defect. The obvious purpose of this application dated 26/9/1991 was an attempt to dissuade this Bench from hearing this matter and, with this end in view the prayer to take a judicial notice of this fact, was coupled with the mention that "lest it should result in exception later on", whereas it was mentioned in this application itself that this contempt application, though filed on 12/3/1991 was still lying in defect even in September, 1991. We called upon Shri S.L. Yadav to let this Bench know to whether any notice had been issued therein even by the time we were hearing this matter in December, 1992. Shri Yadav said that no notice had been issued by the Court even by that time. In any case such attempts to precipitate a situation for the exclusion of any Judge or a particular Bench is highly deplorable. We did not consider it proper to make an exception as there was no justification for the same. Accordingly, this application dated 26/9/1991 does not deserve to be accepted and the same is hereby rejected. (9) Application dated 13/5/1992:- Through this application dated 13/5/1992, presented by Radha Mohan Lal under his own signatures, the relief was sought that the proceedings in this contempt petition may be held in abeyance till the disposal of the enclosed application dated 17/1/1992, or the questions (i) to (viii) mentioned therein may kindly be referred to a Larger Bench in the interests of justice. The application dated 17/1/1992 had been filed under the signatures of Radha Mohan Lal and Shri S.L. Yadav in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 585/1991 and in this application they formulated 8 questions of law and according to them they were important questions of law and they wanted reference to a Larger Bench in accordance with Rule 56 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan before taking the revision petition No. 585/1991 for admission. Thus, it was for the concerned Single Bench hearing the Revision Petition No. 585/1991 to consider as to whether these questions were important questions of law warranting reference to a Larger Bench or not and there was no occasion for us to refer these questions to the Larger Bench and, so far as the present contempt proceedings were concerned, they could not be held in abeyance till the decision of the application dated 17/1/1992 by the Single Bench before which the reference to the Larger Bench was sought. Hearing of this contempt matter could not be deferred sine die till the disposal of the said application dated 17/1/1992. Therefore, this application dated 13/5/1992 is also rejected. (10) Application dated 21/7/1992:- In this application dated 21/7/1992, by Shri S.L. Yadav and duly signed by him, he formulated the following questions of law which, according to him, were important questions of law: — "A. Whether mother application addressed to Honble C.J. dated 17/9/1991, drafted by Shri Vijay Singh Sharma, and Rameshwar Lal Advocates arid signed by all the non-petitioners of S.B. Civil Revision No. 585/91 is part and parcel of the alleged contemners application dated 18/9/91 and deserves to be taken notice of by this Honble Bench, prior to taking cognizance of the above contempt? B. Whether this Honble D.B. constituted of Honble I.S. Israni Justice and Honble M.R. Calla Justice would be a proper Bench against the alleged contemners and in light of the D.B. Civil Contempt (Defect No. 722/91) which had been filed against both of the Honble Judges of this Honble Court prior to initiation of the above contempt? C. Whether proceedings further with this contempt without passing any order on the above application dated 26/9/1991 is likely to prejudice this contempt against the alleged contemners? (11) He prayed that these important questions of law may be referred to a Larger Bench. C. Whether proceedings further with this contempt without passing any order on the above application dated 26/9/1991 is likely to prejudice this contempt against the alleged contemners? (11) He prayed that these important questions of law may be referred to a Larger Bench. We find that there was nothing in any of these questions worthy of making a reference to a Larger Bench. This application was filed only to prolong the matter for an indefinite period and therefore, this application dated 21/7/1992 is also rejected. (12) Application dated 2/11/1992:- So far as the application dated 2/11/1992 is concerned, it is more in the nature of reply to the contempt petition on behalf of Radha Mohan Lal and Shri S.L. Yadav, in which the prayer has been made to drop the contempt proceedings and to withdraw the contempt notice and that the previous applications may be disposed of in the interest of justice. The previous applications have been disposed of as above. Whether the proceedings of this contempt petition are to be dropped and the notice of contempt should be withdrawn or discharged has to do with the merits of this case. Therefore, the decision which we are rendering through this judgment would automatically determine the fate of this application dated 2/12/1992. (13) Thus, having disposed of and dealt with the applications of various dates, as referred to above, we proceed with the main contempt petition. (14) The notice of contempt as was given on 13/5/1992 is as under :- "Issue notice to Shri S.L. Yadav and Shri Radha Mohan as to why they should not be punished for committing the criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by moving the application dated 18.09.1991 in S.B. Civil Revision No. 585/1991 (Rajasthan Sports Council & Ors. Vs. Aam Janta Shahar, Jaipur & Ors.) under their signatures, the contents of para 4 of which read as under : — "4. Vs. Aam Janta Shahar, Jaipur & Ors.) under their signatures, the contents of para 4 of which read as under : — "4. That apart from it, the undersigned has been informed by his client Shri Radha Mohan Lal, Vakil Ex-Chairman of the Municipal Council, Jaipur that he along with other non-petitioners have moved a complaint in writing against Honble Shri R.S. Kejriwal to the Honble Chief Justice requesting him to list the above revision before a Bench of which Honble Shri R.S. Kejriwal is not a member as they have reasonable grounds to believe that no impartial justice would be imparted from this Bench. In the light of the above exceptional and extraordinary facts and circumstances of the matter, the above revision may kindly be allowed to be listed before a Bench not constituted of Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal as the non-petitioners are known to have lost faith in this Bench for reasons obvious. In case the above revision is not allowed to be listed before another Bench the applicant may be allowed sufficient time to approach Supreme Court for transfer of this case." Shri S.L. Yadav and Shri Radha Mohan are present in Court and accepted the notice. A set of copies of todays order sheet, the matter dated 19.09.1991 drawn under the signatures of Kejriwal J. and the copy of the application dated 18.09.1991, filed under the signatures of the non-petitioners, namely Shri S.L. Yadav and Shri Radha Mohan may be made available to them. Shri Yadav and Shri Radha Mohan seek three weeks time to file reply. Time is granted." (15) These documents had been duly made available to non-petitioners and they had sought time to file the reply on 21/7/1992 and 9/10/1992 which was also granted. It is, thus, clear that the notice to the non-petitioners was absolutely definite specific and unequivocal and there was no question of withdrawing the same. The order dated 28/8/1992 passed in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 475/92 dated 9/10/1992 passed in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 527/92, and dated 23-10-1992 passed in S.B. Civil Contempt petition No. 475/92, copies of which have been filed by the non-petitioners as Annexure/A, B and C are of no avail to the non-petitioners in the facts of the case at hand. In State vs. Arun Brijwasi (1), the Division Bench of our own High Court has held that full knowledge of the case, the respondent is called upon to answer, is sufficient and similar preliminary objection in a contempt matter was held to be without any force in para 10 of the judgment as under :– "10. We do not find any force in these preliminary objections of the respondent. It was incorrect to say that the notice was issued without the High Court taking cognizance of it. The articles and the letter were placed before the Honble Chief Justice who considered it necessary to initiate contempt proceedings and constituted this Bench to hear the case. It may also be mentioned that subsequently a notice to the proprietor of the Press was also issued, although even without issuing to him the present proceedings against the respondent could not be treated as irregular. We are also of the opinion that the contempt of Court proceedings is summary in nature and law does not require any formal charge to be framed. It is not necessary that a notice issued in pursuance of a preliminary order must contain all necessary particulars relating to the alleged contempt of Court. All that is necessary is that for the sake of justice and fair play the contemner must know all the facts alleged against him. As would be clear from the proceedings of 14-10-70 the respondent was informed of the allegations which he was required to meet. The material portions of the article and the letter were also underlined and he was supplied the copies thereof after proper underlining. In our opinion, the respondent had full knowledge of the case he was called upon to answer." (16) It is not in dispute that the application dated 18/9/1991 was signed by Shri Radha Mohan Lal as petitioner and Shri Sua Lal Yadav as his counsel and the same was presented by Shri Yadav on 18/9/1991. Taking exception to the contents of para 4 of this application Shri R.S. Kejriwal, as Honble Judge of this Court ordered on 19/9/1991 to place the matter before Honble C.J. for initiating proceedings against non-petitioners under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Taking exception to the contents of para 4 of this application Shri R.S. Kejriwal, as Honble Judge of this Court ordered on 19/9/1991 to place the matter before Honble C.J. for initiating proceedings against non-petitioners under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, the limited question which we have to examine is as under : — "Whether the contents of Para 4 of the application dated 18/9/1991 to which the non-petitioners were signatories as petitioner and his counsel and the presentation of such application after signing by the counsel amounts to contempt of court under Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or not ?" (17) Contents of Para 4 have already been set out above. A reading of the contents of para 4 of the application dated 18/9/1991 make it transparently clear that the request was to get a particular matter listed before a Bench excluding Honble R.S. Kejriwal with reference to reasonable grounds to believe that no impartial justice could be imparted from his Bench and that the nonpetitioners in the revision petition were known to have lost faith in his Bench for reasons obvious. (18) So far as we have been able to understand and appreciate, from the record, voluntary statement dated 2/12/92 of Shri Radha Mohan Lal and the arguments which were raised by Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal before us is that according to Radha Mohan Lal he had only passed on the information contained in para 4 of the application dated 18/9/1991 to his counsel Shri S.L. Yadav and Shri S.L. Yadav says that he had only incorporated such information in para 4 of the application dated 18/9/1991 as was passed on to him by his client and, thus, the incorporation of such information coupled with the prayer made therein and the appending of the signatures thereon and the presentation thereof was done by him as he was the counsel. Shri S.L. Yadav has also referred to the complaint dated 17/9/1991 addressed to the Honble C.J. against Honble R.S. Kejriwal J, and he has referred to it as the mother application during the course of arguments. Shri S.L. Yadav has also referred to the complaint dated 17/9/1991 addressed to the Honble C.J. against Honble R.S. Kejriwal J, and he has referred to it as the mother application during the course of arguments. On the request of Shri S.L. Yadav, a copy of this complaint was got included in the file of this case, but we are concerned only with regard to the contents of Para 4 of the application dated 18/9/1991 upon which Shri R.S. Kejriwal recorded on 19/9/1991 to place the matter before C.J. and thereupon this D.B. was constituted. Complaint dated 17/9/1991 against Shri R.S. Kejriwal was addressed to the Honble Chief Justice and no matter on the contents of complaint dated 17/9/1991 was sent to us. (13) Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is reproduced as under:– "2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: — (C) "Criminal Contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which — (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;" It is to be agreed on all hands and does not admit of any controversy that the contents of Para 4 of the application dated 18/9/1991 seek to impeach the impartiality of Honble Justice R.S. Kejriwal and have the effect of creating a feeling of embarrassment to him as a Judge in the discharge of his duties as a court on the one hand and, on the other hand, such allegations impair the confidence of the genuine and prospective litigants in the courts in the matters of administration of justice. Such allegations against any Judge coupled with the prayer to transfer a particular case from the particular Bench, or to list it before a Bench excluding the particular petitioner Judge is sufficient to lower the authority of the Court. It tends to scandalise the court and is an interference with the administration of justice. Such allegations against any Judge coupled with the prayer to transfer a particular case from the particular Bench, or to list it before a Bench excluding the particular petitioner Judge is sufficient to lower the authority of the Court. It tends to scandalise the court and is an interference with the administration of justice. Therefore, a case of contempt within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is clearly made out on the basis of the contents of Para 4 of the application dated 18/9/1991. However, with regard to Radha Mohan Lal, the case is to be examined on the premise that he is a litigant i.e. the capacity in which he has signed the aforesaid application dated 18/9/1991 and with regard to Shri S.L. Yadav, it is to be examined on the fact- situation that he is a counsel in the case who has signed this application and has presented the same. (20) With regard & to Radha Mohan Lal, it will be sufficient to say that he has admitted that the information contained in Para 4 of the application had been passed on by him to Shri S.L. Yadav, who was his counsel. (20) With regard & to Radha Mohan Lal, it will be sufficient to say that he has admitted that the information contained in Para 4 of the application had been passed on by him to Shri S.L. Yadav, who was his counsel. Obviously, the information was not passed on by him without any purpose and, it must have been passed on so as to be made use of for the purpose of getting the case listed before some other Bench, excluding Honble R.S. Kejriwal J. Although, in his statement he says that he had passed on this information to Shri S.L. Yadav, his counsel; but the fact cannot be lost sight of that he did not rest contended with the passing of that information to his counsel, but he also signed the application in which a prayer was made for listing the case before the Bench excluding Honble R.S. Kejriwal J. and, even during the pendency of the proceedings in this case at one stage on 6/2/1992, the statement was made by his counsel Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma in his presence that he had no intent of showing any disregard to the Honble Judge and the time was sought to file an unconditional apology in writing, but later on no such apology was filed and the fact that Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma withdrew his power on 13/5/1992 gives an impression that Radha Mohan Lal had changed his mind to tender an unconditional apology, and instead moved the application dated 13/5/1992 in the Registry, stating therein that on 6.2.92 his counsel Shri B.L. Sharma had opened his version by saying that he had not by then examined the record of the case and then condemned his own counsel namely Shri B.L. Sharma by stating that Shri B.L. Sharma had added un-instructed that undersigned (Radha Mohan Lal) has high regards for Honble High Court Judges and to this, Lordships required him to submit unconditional apology of Radha Mohan Lal in writing for which he sought time. We may observe that this stand taken by Shri Radha Mohan Lal is clearly an after thought and appears to have been taken in despair to relsite from the earlier stand and is not at all compatible with the proceedings recorded on 6.2.92 and he has gone to the extent of putting words in the mouth of the court by saying that the Lordships required him to submit unconditional apology, although he could not venture to say so in his voluntary statement dated 2.12.92. Even in his voluntary statement dated 2.12.92 he has stated the half truth only and although he had himself signed the application dated 18/9/1991 and he also admits that he had passed on this information of Shri Yadav, yet, he says that it was not mentioned in the application after asking him as if Shri Yadav had made this uninstructed mention of his own. We are of the opinion that Shri Radha Mohan Lal can not escape the liability of the inclusion of the allegations impeaching the impartiality of Honble R.S. Kejriwal J. and the prayer made in the application dated 18/9/1991 and the contents of para 4 this application dated 18/9/1991 on the face of it seek to vilify Shri R.S. Kejriwal as a Judge of this Court as if he lacks judicial equipoise, fairness, open mind, which apart from scandalising the Court, interferes with the administration of justice. Thus to our mind a clear case of committing contempt within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act is made out against Radha Mohan Lal. (21) There may not be any doubt that the allegations impeaching the impartiality of Honble R.S. Kejriwal J. coupled with the prayer to get the matter listed before a Bench to the exclusion of Honble R.S. Kejriwal J. was incorporated in the application dated 18/9/1991 by Shri S.L. Yadav as a counsel and he signed and presented the same as the counsel of Radha Mohan Lal But the question arises as to whether to say that he had acted as a counsel in doing so, is sufficient to absolve him from the liability of committing contempt of court within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Shri Yadav has not shown and has not placed any material on record to show that he had reasonably satisfied himself to the prima facie existence of adequate grounds in support of the information which was passed on to him by his client and that he had taken due care and caution before incorporating the same in the application before signing the same and before presenting this application with the contents as those of Para 4 therein, rather it is not even his case. It is no duty of a counsel to take interest in such applications, rather his duty is to advise his client to refrain from making any allegations of such nature and to move applications with prayers as were made in the application dated 18/9/1991. Had Shri S.L. Yadav advise his client Radha Mohan Lal to refrain from moving such application, the Honble Judge of this Court would have been saved of facing the allegations impeaching his impartiality and undue embarrassment which he had to face on account of the allegations and prayer made in the application dated 18/9/1991 to list this case before some other Bench to his exclusion. Shri R.M. Lodha appearing for the High Court has cited before us the decisions of the Supreme Court and the various High Courts, as under : (22) In M.Y. Shareef vs. Judges of Nagpur High Court (2), the Supreme Court considered the case of contempt against two very senior members of the Nagpur Bar and one of their clients. In para 11 of this decision, the Supreme Court has observed as under: — "This misconception has to be rooted out by a clear and emphatic pronouncement, and we think it should be widely made known that counsel who sign applications of pleadings containing matter scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefore, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves quality of contempt of Court, and that it is no duty of a counsel to his client to take any interest in such applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications." (23) M.K. Acharya V. Revashanker (3) is based on the case of M.Y. Shareef V. Judges of Nagpur High Court (supra). The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the allegations levelled against the Presiding Officer of the Court in an application for transfer containing scandalising allegations against the Court. (24) Swaranamayi v. B. Nayak (4) is also based on M.Y. Shareef vs. Judges of Nagpur High Court (supra). The Orissa High Court considered the liability of the counsel signing an application for transfer containing the matter scandalising the Court and the duty of the legal profession. (25) In Advocate General A.P. vs. Laxminarayana (5), the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered that making statement scandalising, abusing, belittling or deriding Court or a judicial officer and causing embarrassment to the judicial officer in the discharge of his duties, is only one of the various forms of contempt. This can be done in ways even more than one; one of which is by writing letters to the judicial officers or sending notices. It has been further observed that there can be no privilege attached to a lawyer who on the instructions of his client issues notice of a judicial officer in respect of his work in Court, which is calculated or amounts to either scandalising him or embarrassing him in the discharge of his duties. It has been held in this case that even a notice under Sec. 80, Civil Procedure Code if it imputes improper motives to a judicial Officer in a proceedings in a Court of law does not protect either the person who has instructed or the person giving it. (26) In Brahma Prakash vs. State of U.P. (6), it has been observed in para 14, as under: — "It cannot be disputed that in regard to matters of contempt, that members of a Bar Association do not occupy any privileged or higher position than ordinary citizens." (27) In Re Dashrath Chand vs. The State of Rajasthan (7), it has been observed by the Division Bench in para 7 of the judgment that casting aspersions on the integrity of a Judge or his impartiality in dealing with cases in a criminal contempt within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Act. (28) Thus, the legal position which emerges on the basis of the adjudications in the aforesaid cases is that the counsel who signs and presents an application containing allegations of impeaching the impartiality of a Judge, of showing lack of confidence and to seek listing of the case before other Bench to the exclusion of the Judge against whom the allegations are made and takes interest in pursuing such applications without taking the least trouble or effort to verify even prima facie the correctness or otherwise of such allegations against the Judge about which he is informed by his client is guilty of equally contumacious conduct. To espouse the plea and prayer that, no impartial justice would be imparted from this Bench and further that, non-petitioners are known to have lost faith in this bench for reasons obvious, coupled with the prayer that, the above revision may kindly be allowed to be listed before a bench not constituted of Honble Mr. Justice Kejriwal is sufficient to exhibit scant regard for Shri R.S. Kejriwal as a Judge of this Court; seeking to stigmatise his conduct so as to tarnish his image as a part and parcel of the judiciary as an institution; it seeks to ridicule the Judge on the one hand and shakes the confidence about the administration of justice creating an impression that the Judge was partial and at least puts a question mark against his impartiality on the other hand. We are therefore fully convinced and have no hesitation in holding that Shri S.L. Yadav has acted in a manner so as to weaken the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice and, therefore, we hold that Shri S.L. Yadav is also guilty of committing the contempt within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (29) Before we proceed further on the question of punishment, we may observe that throughout the proceedings in this case, we were bemoaned on the attitude of the contemners, particularly Shri S.L. Yadav who has been a police employee earlier and is now a practising Advocate of this Court, by moving successive applications in these proceedings from the very beginning attempted to brow-beat the court to seek an exception of this Bench also. Rather than being resentful for what had happened in the matter of moving the application dated 18/9/1991, Shri Yadav throughout had an attitude of obstinacy and bravado and the attitude which was wholly defiant and no repentance whatsoever, what to talk of thinking about apology. The statement which was made on 6/2/1992 before this Court when Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma appeared on behalf of Radha Mohan Lal, sought time to file an unconditional apology in writing and later on withdrawal of power of Bajrang Lal Sharma on 13/5/1992 before this Court and the contents of Radha Mohan Lals application dated 13/5/1992 are also the facts which cannot be left unnoticed in this sequence. We have noted in the attitude of Shri S.L. Yadav the tendency to brow-beat the Court by levelling allegations and he has exhibited full adamance. Deliberately setting up unfounded plea leading to an open expression of lack of confidence in the Judge without any basis, on wholly nonest grounds and moving successive applications seeking to arrest or obstruct the progress of a case aggravates his contemptuous conduct. We are aware that the contempt is a rod which is to be used sparingly and the powers of the High Court to punish should be exercised with due and caution, but in the facts of this case, we are constrained to express and observe that in order to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice and to protect it, it is necessary to curb the evil which if unchecked might result in belittling the dignity of the Court and the majesty of law so that law is not seen simply to sit by limping while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection loose hope. Shri R.M. Lodha has also cited before us Pritam Lal vs. High Court of M.P. (8) in which the Supreme Court has observed in para 64 of the judgment as under : — "64. Coming to the question of sentence, it appears from the order of the High Court that the appellant had adopted a decant attitude and tried to justify the aspersions made by him even without thinking it necessary to apologies. Before this Court also, the appellant has neither expressed any contrition nor has he any repentance for the vicious allegations made against the learned Judges of the High Court. Before this Court also, the appellant has neither expressed any contrition nor has he any repentance for the vicious allegations made against the learned Judges of the High Court. But on the other hand, he has exhibited a dogged determination to pursue the matter, come what may. A reading of his memorandum of grounds and the written and signed arguments show that he has ventured into another bout of allegations against the High Court Judges and persisted in his campaign of vilification. His present conduct has aggravated rather than mitigating his offence." (30) In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in passing the order of punishment against non-petitioners Shri S.L. Yadav and Radha Mohan Lal for committing the contempt of the Court and each of them is sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine each of them has to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Both of them may be taken into custody to serve the sentence. (31) The contempt petition is allowed and decided accordingly.