Shiva Nand Chaturvedi v. Anarpati Verma — 1996 DIGILAW 858 (ALL)

Judgment : G.S.N. Tripathi 1. IN Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17627 of 1995, this Court passed the following order on 22.9.95 : "Issue notice. Meanwhile the operation of the impugned order dated 23.6.95 shall remain stayed and further, respondents are restrained from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as Manager of the Institution." 2. THE Society Sri Amar Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Khajuri and others through its Sanrakshak Sri Shiv Nand Chaturvedi, as petitioner No. 1 and Sri Shiva Nand Chaturvedi as petitioner No. 2 filed the Writ Petition No. 17627 of 1995 seeking the following reliefs :- "Issue a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.6.95 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Ballia (Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition). B. Issued a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to attest the signature of petitioner No. 2 as Manager of both Institutions, namely Shri Amar Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Khejuri, Ballia and Sri Amar Nath Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khejuri, Ballia. C. Issue a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Manager of both Institutions. That writ petition was based on the allegation that Sri Shiva Nand Chaturvedi/petitioner No. 2 was validly acting as Sanrakshak/Manager of the Society of Sri Amar Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Khejuri, Ballia. On 23.6.93, the petitioner sent a registered letter to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, respondent No. 1, informing that since 22.6.93 the petitioner No. 1 has taken over the management of the Institution, which was governed by the society Rules. In this letter, it was also requested that the petitioner No. 2 be permitted to manage both the Institutions till the Committee of Management is properly elected. On 8.7.93, another letter by registered post was sent to the respondent No. 1 reminding him that no action had been taken by him on the earlier letters sent by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 was further requested to attest the signature of the petitioner No. 2. He was also requested in that notice not to pass the salary bills sent by any other person posing himself to be Manager. But for oblique reasons, the respondent No. 1 did not take any action thereon. The respondent No. 1 was further requested to attest the signature of the petitioner No. 2. He was also requested in that notice not to pass the salary bills sent by any other person posing himself to be Manager. But for oblique reasons, the respondent No. 1 did not take any action thereon. Then the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 28366 of 1993, in which, on 18.1.94 an interim order was passed by the High Court directing respondent No. 1 to attest the signature of the petitioner No. 2 and permit him to work as a Manager. The High Court's order dated 18.1.94 was also sent along with that letter. 3. STILL the respondent No. 1 did not take any action. Then the contempt petition No. 355 of 1995 was moved against the then District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) Smt. Madhuri Srivastava. She had been called upon by the court to file counter-affidavit. Despite that, respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 23.6.95 directing the respondent No. 2 to operate the account of the Institution singly known as 'Single Operation' for operating the account of the Institution. That order is illegal. Then the Writ Petition No. 17627 of 1995 was filed in this court on 3.7.95 and the interim order referred to above was passed, (para 1 supra, of this judgment). 4. NOTICE was also ordered to be issued after admitting the petition. The respondent No. 1 did not comply with the order aforesaid, may she did not file any counter-affidavit in the main petition. 5. THE allegation of the petitioner is that a copy of the order dated 22.9.95 was served upon the respondents on 25.9.95 and again it was sent by registered post also on 29.9.95 and an application dated 29.9.95 was also moved by the petitioner No. 2 along with the copy of the order dated 22.9.95 and the respondent No. 1 was specifically requested to comply with the order dated 22.9.95 passed by this Court. Again the same request was made to the respondent No. 1 on 9.11.95, 24.11.95 and 28.2.95 requesting her to comply with the order of this Court. But till the date of filing of this contempt petition or even today, that order has not been complied with. Again the same request was made to the respondent No. 1 on 9.11.95, 24.11.95 and 28.2.95 requesting her to comply with the order of this Court. But till the date of filing of this contempt petition or even today, that order has not been complied with. Hence the prayer in the contempt petition is that legal action be taken against the respondents for intentionally and knowingly violating the order of this Court. 6. ON 5.1.96, this court ordered that notices shall be issued to opposite parties fixing 25th March, 1996 as the next date of hearing and listing. The respondents were also called upon to appear in person before the court. However, if they had complied with the order passed by this Court, supra, they would stand exempted from appearing in person. The office reported that notices had been issued and served. Opposite party No. 1 filed her short counter- affidavit, on 25.3.96, in paragraph 2, it is admitted that notice of the aforesaid contempt petition was received in the office of the respondent No. 1. She has also filed counter-affidavit in the main petition No. 17627 of 1995. Not only that, allegedly respondent No. 1 tried her best to get a complete record of the aforesaid case which was misplaced. The Dealing Clerk had informed her that records of the aforesaid case were not at their proper place. However, they were searching the complete record. She also sought two weeks further time for filing detailed counter-affidavit, and the detailed counter-affidavit was filed by her on 19.4.94. She has alleged that the bye-laws submitted by the petitioner with regard to the Institutions were not approved by the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi. In fact the teachers and other employees of the Institutions were not getting their salary since long. Therefore, the then District Inspector of Schools, Ballia passed an order dated 23.6.95 for operating the accounts in a single operation manner. She also admits in paragraph 8 that the representations of the petitioner dated 9.11.95, 24.11.95 and 28.9.95 had been received by her. The petitioner is not entitled to work as a Manager in this Institution. Cursorily, she has also alleged in the same paragraph that if this Hon'ble Court directs the answering respondent to attest the signature of the petitioner, the answering respondent would have no hesitation in doing so. The petitioner is not entitled to work as a Manager in this Institution. Cursorily, she has also alleged in the same paragraph that if this Hon'ble Court directs the answering respondent to attest the signature of the petitioner, the answering respondent would have no hesitation in doing so. But the petitioner is not entitled to work as a Manager of the Institution. She alleges in para 9. Although she has not committed any contempt she by the way also 'tendered an "unconditional apology" that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the act and conduct of the answering respondent falls within the ambit of Contempt of Court's Act, the answering respondent is tendering her unconditional apology for the same." Under these circumstances, the contempt petition has been heard in detail. 7. THESE facts are not disputed that on 22.9.95, this Court had passed an order that the impugned order dated 23.6.95 (for operating single operation account) shall remain stayed and further the respondents were restrained from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as Manager of the Institution. Again it is admitted that the petitioner informed repeatedly the respondent about the passing of this order by the court. The respondent did not take any action. Therefore, the petitioner again and again requested the respondent No. 1 to act according to the directions contained in the aforesaid order of the High Court. In paragraph 88 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, she has admitted the averments made in paragraph 12 of the affidavit relating to the representations of the petitioner dated 9.11.95, 24.11.95 and 28.9.95. Yet, she has neither stayed that order dated 23.6.95, nor she has allowed the petitioner No. 2 to work as a Manager. She has also not attested the petitioner's signature as a Manager in order to enable him to operate the accounts of this Institution. 8. SINGLE operation system was evolved by the predecessor of respondent No. 1 by the order dated 23.6.95, the operation of which had been stayed by the High Court on 22.9.95. Yet it is still continuing in operation unfortunately and illegally. 8. SINGLE operation system was evolved by the predecessor of respondent No. 1 by the order dated 23.6.95, the operation of which had been stayed by the High Court on 22.9.95. Yet it is still continuing in operation unfortunately and illegally. Not only this, the petitioner No. 2 has not been allowed to work as Manager of the Institution because for doing that, it is essential that the signature of the petitioner No. 2 should be attested by the respondent No. 1 and all disbursals, including payment of salary of the employees, teachers, etc. of the Institution should be done by the combined signatures of petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 1. Nay it is admitted that the order dated 23.6.96 has not been withdrawn or suspended by the respondent No. 1 by way of compliance of this Court's order dated 22.9.95. Thus all the allegations made by the petitioner No. 2 in this contempt petition stand proved and there is no factual dispute that the order dated 22.9.95 passed by this Court has not been complied with, in letter or spirit. It is admitted that everything contrary to the letter and spirit of the order is being done by respondent No. 1 till today. Thus it is a glagrant and wilful violation of the order dated 22.9.95, which is being committed by the respondent No. 1 till today. 9. NOT only this, she still has the courage to allege in paragraph 8 of her counter-affidavit as follows :- "However, in any case, if this Hon'ble Court directs the answering respondents to attest the signatures of the petitioner, the answering respondent has no hesitation to do so, but the petitioner is not entitled to work as Manager in the Institution." 10. THIS way, there is no difficulty in coming to the only conclusion, which is possible under the circumstances of the case that the respondent No. 1 has knowingly, intentionally and malafidely violated the order of this Court and under these circumstances, she has committed a wilful disobedience of the order passed by this court dated 22.9.95 and thus it is established that respondent No. 1 has committed a gross contempt of this Court. No extenuating circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court. It is also not established that the contemnor, respondent No. 1 has tendered an unconditional apology. No extenuating circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court. It is also not established that the contemnor, respondent No. 1 has tendered an unconditional apology. Rather it is established that she has simply tried to escape from the rigours of the offence committed by her. It is not a genuine apology nor it is established that the contemnor has any regret for the crime she has committed. Therefore, I am rejecting her apology contained in paragraph 9 of her counter-affidavit. 11. AFTER once it is established that respondent No. 1 has committed a civil contempt by her wilful disobedience of the order of this Court to the only question remains what punishment should be meted out to her. Respondent No. 1 is a senior officer of Provincial Education Service, holding the post of District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. It means that she has put in not less than 10 years of service in this deptt. Therefore, she knows the pravity of any default made by anyone, including herself. Hence there is no question of showing any leniency to her. However, since this appears to be her first crime of this sort, 1 think some leniency can be shown on this ground. 12. SMT. Anar Pati Verma, respondent No. 1 is herewith held guilty of committing a gross contempt of this court by intentionally flouting the order dated 22.9.95 passed by this Court. She is sentenced to 2 (two) months' Simple Imprisonment and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 200. On failure to pay the fine, further 15 days simple imprisonment shall have to be undergone by her. She is present in the court. She shall be taken into custody at once to serve out the sentence awarded to her. The contempt petition is thus finally disposed of. After the delivery of the judgment, learned State counsel states that the contemnor shall file an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, she may be granted a month's time to file the same and in the meanwhile, the contemnor may be released on bail. There is a provision of extending this privilege to the accused contemnor under Section 9 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The prayer is allowed. A month's time is granted to the accused contemnor to move the appellate court to bring the stay order from there. There is a provision of extending this privilege to the accused contemnor under Section 9 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The prayer is allowed. A month's time is granted to the accused contemnor to move the appellate court to bring the stay order from there. Meanwhile, she shall be released on bail on her furnishing two sureties and a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000 each to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Allahabad High Court for a period of one month from today. Failing which, she shall be taken into custody by the C.J.M., Ballia.