JUDGMENT 1. - This petition highlights an issue which apparently appears to be trivial one but is of significance. The issue involved is whether the act of non-petitioner in issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause and explain as to why its registration as B-Class contractor be not cancelled for making false and imaginary allegations against the Department in the suit filed by him in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Lower Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur during the pendency of the suit does amount to contempt of the Court. In other words, whether it amounts to obstruction or interference in the administration of justice ? 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner firm was B-Class Contractor with the non-petitioner i.e. Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaipur Region; Jaipur. Tenders were invited from registered Contractors for construction of certain works mentioned in the advertisement issued by non-petitioner. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner also submitted tender. The petitioner apprehending some malafides action on the part of the non-petitioner in allotment of work, filed a civil suit for grant of perpetual injunction in the above referred Court which was registered as civil suit No. 87/95. An application seeking temporary injunction was also filed alongwith the plaint in which notices were issued. While the suit was pending, non-petitioner gave registered notice to the petitioner to show cause and explain as to why his registration be not cancelled. The notice is reproduced for the sake of convenience : 3. The question for determination, therefore, is whether the conduct of the non-petitioner in issuing the above notice amounted to contempt of Court? On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the action of non-petitioner was clearly an obstruction or interference in the administration of justice as by giving such notice, he tried to exert pressure on the petitioner to with draw the suit filed by him. Learned Counsel contended that any interference of any kind in the legitimate right of the petitioner to seek redress from a Court of law would fall in the grip of contempt of Court. Mr. Agrawal also contended that doors of justice should be accessible to all without any fear or pressure of any kind. Learned Counsel contended that any interference of any kind in the legitimate right of the petitioner to seek redress from a Court of law would fall in the grip of contempt of Court. Mr. Agrawal also contended that doors of justice should be accessible to all without any fear or pressure of any kind. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner and the learned Advocate General contended that the action of non-petitioner in giving the notice in question might be unwise, but strictly it does not fall in the ambit of contempt of Court. It was contended by them that both the proceedings i.e. the proceeding in the civil suit filed by the petitioner and the departmental proceeding for cancellation of petitioner's registration as B-Class Contractor were separate and independent of each other and the non-petitioner was within its right to initiate steps against the petitioner for cancelling his registration as B-Class contractor. 4. Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), defines criminal contempt as under : "2(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 proceeding: or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner." 5. The above definition of criminal contempt is wide enough and it takes into its fold not only those actions which tend to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect or disregard, but it also covers every conduct or action which obstructs or interferes with the legitimate right of a citizen to have free access to a Court of law. The law of contempt is essentially meant for keeping the administration of justice pure and under filed. It maintains that doors of justice should be free and accessible to all without any fear or pressure. Every citizen has an unfettered right to seek redress from a Court of law for any grievance that he may have. The law of contempt is essentially meant for keeping the administration of justice pure and under filed. It maintains that doors of justice should be free and accessible to all without any fear or pressure. Every citizen has an unfettered right to seek redress from a Court of law for any grievance that he may have. Any threatening action against such person seeking redress in the Court undoubtedly tentamounts to interfering with the administration of justice. Where a person even feels that any proceeding initiated in a Court of law against him is frivolous, vexatious, malafide or otherwise unwarranted, the remedy for him lies to contest the matter in the Court. It would be unwise on his part to give threatening or exert pressure on the opposite party for the action taken by him in the Court. Such conduct unmistakably would amount to an interference with the administration of justice making him liable for contempt of Court. 6. In Shankar Lal Sharma v. N.S. Bisht, AIR 1956 All. 160 , the facts were that an employee of the Public Works Department of Uttar Pradesh, moved the High Court for the grant of a writ. While, the writ petition was pending in the High Court, the Chief Engineer, PWD (U.P.) purporting to act in accordance with certain directions contained in a circular letter asked for an explanation from the employee as to why he has submitted a writ petition to the High Court. The learned Judges expressed the view that there was no doubt the action taken by the Chief Engineer in accordance with the instructions contained in the circular letter amounted to a threat with the view to induce the employee to forgo the assistance of the Civil Courts. It was observed : "There is no doubt that if any kind of threat or any action which may amount to such threat is held out to a person, who has approached the Civil Courts for a redress of such grievances as he may consider that he has, with a view to induce him to fore go the assistance of the Civil Courts, the action amounts to a Contempt of Court. It is a clear interference with the right of every citizen who claims redress from the Civil Courts fancy grievance that he may have. No kind of Government order in this respect can excuse such an action." 7. It is a clear interference with the right of every citizen who claims redress from the Civil Courts fancy grievance that he may have. No kind of Government order in this respect can excuse such an action." 7. A similar question arose in Pratap Singh and Another v. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 1962 S.C. 1172 . The facts of the case were that Gurbaksh Singh was a Forester in the Punjab Forest Department. One Shri Pratap Singh, at the relevant time, was the Chief Conservator of Forest and Shri Bachan Singh was the Divisional Forest Officer (Amritsar). Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Forester, had supplied three lacs cubic feet of timber to the various Ordnance Depots under orders of the then Chief Conservator of Forest. Thereafter, a letter was sent by the Chief Conservator of Forest to Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Forester, alleging that there had been a short supply in the timber which was sent to the Ordnance Depot at Chhoke and that there had been a loss of Rs. 11,366/- to the Government. The State Government, subsequently by an order conveyed in a letter directed the Chief Conservator of Forest to recover 10% of the loss from the Forester Gurbaksh Singh. The letter further stated that the recovery be made from his salary. The Forester, Gurbaksh Singh then instituted a suit in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, for a declaration that the order of recovery made against him was void and without any effect. The suit was followed by petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was dismissed by the Punjab High Court when the summons in the suit was served on the State Government. The Under Secretary to the concerned Department sent a Memorandum to the Chief Conservator of Forest, drawing his attention to a circular letter issued by the Chief Secretary which required a Government servant to seek redress from the appropriate Department and Government authorities before seeking remedy in a Court of law. The Under Secretary in his Memorandum stated that as the Forester-Gurbaksh Singh had not exhausted the departmental remedies open to him before going to a Court of law, he was rendered liable to disciplinary action as per the instructions contained in the circular letter. The Under Secretary in his Memorandum stated that as the Forester-Gurbaksh Singh had not exhausted the departmental remedies open to him before going to a Court of law, he was rendered liable to disciplinary action as per the instructions contained in the circular letter. The Under Secretary then said in the Memorandum - "It may please be intimated immediately as to what action you propose to take against him." On receipt of this Memorandun, the Chief Conservator of Forest sent a copy thereof to the Conservator of Forest, South Circle and directed that Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Forester, be proceeded in accordance with the instructions aforesaid and a copy of the proceedings recorded and order passed in the case should be forwarded to him. On receipt of the said order, the Conservation of Forest appointed Shri Bachan Singh, Divisional Forest Officer to hold an inquiry against the Forester, Gurbaksh Singh for having contravened the instructions contained in the circular letter. Bachan Singh then drew up a charge-sheet against him and asked to submit an explanation in writing within 15 days. The charge-sheet contained that he had gone to a Court of law before exhausting all his departmental remedies and this was contrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline. Thereupon, the Forester Gurbaksh Singh made an application to the High Court to punish the Chief Conservator of Forest and the Divisional Forest Officer, Amritsar for Contempt of Court. The Punjab High Court held them guilty u/Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1952 and an appeal was preferred by the contemners before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Shankar Lal v. M.S. Bisht (supra) and held : "From the practical point of view, the institution of the proceedings at a time when the suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, was pending could only be to put pressure on the respondent to withdraw his suit, or face the consequences of disciplinary action. This, in our opinion, undoubtedly amounted to Contempt of Court. This, in our opinion, undoubtedly amounted to Contempt of Court. There are many ways of obstructing,the Court and "any conduct by which the course of justice is perverted, either by a party or a stranger, is contempt; thus, the use of threats by letter or otherwise, to a party while his suit is pending: or abusing a party in letters to persons likely to be witnesses in the cause have been held to be contempts." (Oswald's Contempt of Court, 3rd Edn. P.87). The question is not whether the action in fact interfered, but whether it had a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice. The action taken in this case against the respondent by way of a proceeding against him, in our opinion, have only one tendency, namely, the tendency to coerce the respondent and force him to with draw his suit or otherwise not press it. If that be the clear an unmistakable tendency of the proceedings taken against the respondent, then there can be no doubt that in law the appellants have been guilty of Contempt of Court even though they were merely carrying out the instructions contained in the circular letter." 8. In Giani Ram v. Ramnath Dutt, AIR1955 Raj. 123 , a charge-sheet was given by a superior officer to his subordinate who was appearing as a witness in Court and this was done before his examination was complete questioning certain statements made by him in the course of his statement in Court. The Division Bench of this Court held that the action taken by the Superior Officer was most misguided one and was clearly bound to interfere with the even course of administration of justice and he was guilty of the Contempt of Court. It was observed : "It is impossible for us to come to any other conclusion in such circumstances then to hold that the action taken by the opposite party was a most misguided one and was clearly bound to interfere with the even course of administration of justice. Such conduct on the part of the opposite party was a clear invasion on the freedom of his subordinate who was appearing as a witness, to give a free and a frank statement regarding a matter which was in a Court of law. Such conduct on the part of the opposite party was a clear invasion on the freedom of his subordinate who was appearing as a witness, to give a free and a frank statement regarding a matter which was in a Court of law. We wish to point out in this connection that a number of agencies or persons have their own contribution to make in carrying a judicial proceedings to its proper conclusion the object where of undoubtedly is to ascertain the true facts and to do justice and that the law of contempt throws a ring of protection around the entire course of litigation. Witnesses no less than Judges and Counsel are an integral part of this process and they must be left unhampered to perform their respective duties with frankness and without interference of any kind. We have, therefore, no doubt whatever that anything which tends to impair the legitimate freedom of any of these cannot but result in obstructing the course of justice and such interference must be reprobated. The action of the opposite party in this view clearly amounts to Contempt of Court, and we would add that it is a contempt of a substantial character and not a mere technical one." 9. In back ground of the definition of criminal contempt under the Act and the law enunciated by various pronouncements referred to above, we now proceed to examine whether the conduct of the non-petitioner makes him guilty for Contempt of Court or not ? 10. We have already reproduced the notice given by the non-petitioner. The notice was given when the suit filed by the petitioner was pending. By the notice explanation was sought from the petitioner as to why his registration as B Class Contractor need not be cancelled for making averments in the suit which in his opinion, were not false and imaginary. Not only this, a copy of the notice/letter was sent to various Executive Engineers of the Department not to allow the petitioner to participate in tenders till the suit is decided by the Civil Court. 11. After giving our careful and deep consideration we are of the confirmed view that the action taken by the non-petitioner was clearly bound to interfere with the even course of administration of justice. 11. After giving our careful and deep consideration we are of the confirmed view that the action taken by the non-petitioner was clearly bound to interfere with the even course of administration of justice. It was a clear invasion on the legitimate right of the petitioner to seek redress in a Court of law and the petitioner was penalised by non-petitioner for filing the civil suit. We have no hesitation in holding the non-petitioner quality of committing Contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 of the Act. 12. We are not in agreement with the contention made by the learned Advocate General and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner that the action taken by the non-petitioner was quite independent to filing of the suit by the petitioner. The decision in K.T. Chandy v. Mansa Ram Zade, AIR 1974 S.C. 642 , referred to by them, has no application on facts of the present case. In that case, the service of the respondent employee was terminated during the pendency of the suit filed by him for declaration and mandatory injunction. In the suit he had not asked for an interim injunction restraining the appellant company from terminating his service during pendency of the suit. The Apex Court of the country in the facts of the case held that no contempt was committed by the appellant as the order terminating his service did not threaten the respondent to withdraw whole or part of his suit. In our view, this decision is quite distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 13. The next question is as to what punishment should be meted out to the non-petitioner ? Ordinarily, we would have taken a severe view against him to uphold the principle that the stream of justice must remain pure and un-interfered with under all circumstances and the action of the non-petitioner cannot be justified in any manner. Though, the petitioner in his earlier affidavit tried to justify his conduct, but before commencement of the hearing of the petition he has submitted unqualified apology. The notice in question has also been withdrawn after filing of the contempt proceedings. Though, the petitioner in his earlier affidavit tried to justify his conduct, but before commencement of the hearing of the petition he has submitted unqualified apology. The notice in question has also been withdrawn after filing of the contempt proceedings. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the chapter is closed by leaving a warning to the non-petitioner and asking him to pay costs of these proceedings to the petitioner. We order accordingly. Costs is assessed as Rs.1,000/-. Ordered accordingly. *******