JUDGMENT : 1. to 33. (Not printed). 34. Article 235 of the Constitution of India vests the power of superintendence and control of the subordinate judiciary in the High Court. This is apparent from a bare reading of the aforementioned Article which runs as follows: Control over subordinate Court - The control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post Inferior to the post of District Judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this Article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorizing the High Court to deal with him otherwise than In accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law. There are eating of decisions of the Apex Court explaining the true meaning and scope of the aforesaid article but we need mention only one for the present. In All India Judges' Association vs. Union of India and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 119 , the Supreme Court has observed thus: We must indicate with all the emphasis at our command that the system has to be solved as for a civilized society an enlightened independent Judiciary is totally indispensable. The High Courts must take greater interest in the proper functioning of the subordinate judiciary. Inspection should not be a matter of casual attention. The constitution has vested the control of the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 in the High Court as a whole and not its Chief Justice alone. Every Judge should, therefore, take adequate interest in the institution which is placed under the control of the High Court. (Emphasis supplied) 35. A committee was constituted consisting of G. Malviya, S.N. Sahay and I.P. Vashisth, JJ. for drawing an exhaustive questionnaire for inspections by the Inspecting Judges of this Court. Every Judge should, therefore, take adequate interest in the institution which is placed under the control of the High Court. (Emphasis supplied) 35. A committee was constituted consisting of G. Malviya, S.N. Sahay and I.P. Vashisth, JJ. for drawing an exhaustive questionnaire for inspections by the Inspecting Judges of this Court. The said Committee vide its report dated 25.9.1994 suggested, inter-alia, that it will also be desirable for an Inspecting Judge to arrange a meeting with the District Authorities, namely, Divisional Commissioner, I.G., D.I.G. D.M., S.S.P. or S.P., A.D.M. (City), President of the local Board, so that general problems relating to the dispensation of Justice, co-operation of the civil and executive authorities with the Judges, Magistrates and Presiding Officers may be discussed and sorted out. The committee had also suggested conducting surprise inspection of the Judgeship by the Inspecting Judges. As Lo in what manner the Inspecting Judges will hold inspection, however, the Committee left the Judge to decide. The element of surprise is bound to disappear if the Inspecting Judge informs the District Judge of his tour programme. Naturally after his surprise visit the Inspecting Judge will require an accommodation in the circuit House/Inspection Bungalow/or any other Government accommodation. Imagine a situation when the district administration refuses, on one pretext or the other, to afford an accommodation to such an Inspecting Judge. 36. G.O. No. 6648 MS/XXIII-PWC-45 MSA, dated 8.5.62 of the Government In regard to Inspection House of the State reads thus: (e) Chief Justice and Administrative Judge of High Court as below: (a) The reservation of accommodation made for the Chief Justice and the Administrative Judge of High Court should, on no account be cancelled except under very special circumstances in which case, the Executive Engineer concerned should, sent telegraphic intimation to the Hon'ble High Court and also inform the Mukhya Abhiyants, S.N. Vibhag accordingly giving reasons, therefore, if the reasons given by the Executive Engineer, are not found unavoidable action may be taken against him (Executive Engineer). (b) The tour programme of the Hon'ble Judge should be sent direct to the Executive Engineer concerned well In advance. (c) The reservation of accommodation for the Hon'ble Judge may be restricted to only two suites of room, where an Inspection House more than two suites of rooms. (b) The tour programme of the Hon'ble Judge should be sent direct to the Executive Engineer concerned well In advance. (c) The reservation of accommodation for the Hon'ble Judge may be restricted to only two suites of room, where an Inspection House more than two suites of rooms. (d) The reservation of accommodation made for the Administrative Judge of High Court will have to be cancelled or refused in case, the accommodation is required for Minister who has given more than one week's notice. If the Minister has given more than one week's notice, the better suite of rooms will be reserved for the Minister. The State Government through Its P.W.D. Department had framed a rule which was circulated to all concerned through office memo bearing No. 1172 CB/83/23 P.W.D. VIII/8-221 CB-81, dated 16th April, 1983. This rule governs allotment, etc. of Circuit Houses, situated at Almora, Dehradun, Bareilly, Meerut, Agra, Kanpur, Allahabad, Faizabad, Varanasi Headquarters as well as to such Circuit Houses, which may be constructed in future. According to this rule, the allotment has to be done in the following order: (relevant portion only). (A) V.I.P. Room for President/Vice President/Prime Minister/The Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Governor of U.P. and Chief Minister, U.P. If the V.V.I.P. Room is not required by them it will be allotted to the guests of following categories: (i) Cabinet Minister of the Union/Union Minister of State. (ii) Speaker, Legislative Assembly, U.P. (iii) Chairman, Legislative Council, U.P. (iv) Chief Justice of High Court, Allahabad. (v) Chief Election Commissioner/Auditor and Controller General of India/Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Chief Vigilance Officer, Judges of the Supreme Court and the officers equivalent to the rank of secretary of the Government of India. (B) Re-V.I.P. Room. (1) Cabinet Ministers of the State Government/Dy. Minister of Government of India/Dy. Speaker. Lok Sabha/Vice Chairman Rajya Sabha. (2) Dy. Speaker of Legislative Assembly and Vice Chairman of Legislative Council. (3) State Guest. (4) Leader of the Opposition Vidhan Sabha/Parishad. (5) Judges of Allahabad High Court. (6) Chairman, Public Service Commission, U.P. (7) Advocate General/Addl. Advocate General of U.P. (8) Ex-Governors of U.P./Chief Ministers of U.P. and Governors and Chief Ministers of other state who are not in official Tour. (9) An other guest authorized by the secretary of the Estate Department. (4) Leader of the Opposition Vidhan Sabha/Parishad. (5) Judges of Allahabad High Court. (6) Chairman, Public Service Commission, U.P. (7) Advocate General/Addl. Advocate General of U.P. (8) Ex-Governors of U.P./Chief Ministers of U.P. and Governors and Chief Ministers of other state who are not in official Tour. (9) An other guest authorized by the secretary of the Estate Department. In course of our hearing, the State produced before us a Government order as contained in Letter No. 5107/DB/84-23-Public Works/Lucknow, dated 15th December, 1984 sent by the Secretary, U.P. Government to the Secretary, Department of Irrigation/Urban Development/Forest Department/Department of Energy, U.P. Government with copy to others, sent through Fax message dated 15th April, 1996 of the present District Magistrate, Chamoli, intimating that it has been decided by the Government after full consideration that one suite of which every department of each Inspection Bungalow Rest House in which there is more than one suite shall be kept reserved for stay of V.I.P. and it shall be reserved as a reserved suite which shall be allotted by the District Magistrates clarifying that in the definition of Very Important Person the following will stand Included: 1. President/Vice-President/Prime Minister/Speaker, Lok Sabha/Chief Justice of India, Governor of Uttar Pradesh and Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. 2. Members of Central and State Government. 3. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chairman, Administrative Council, U.P. 4. Chief Justice and the Judges of the Allahabad High Court. 5. Chief Election Commissioner/Chief Controller of Accounts, Government of India/ Chairman, Public Service Commission, Chief Vigilance Officer, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court and Officers of the Government equivalent to the rank of Joint Secretary and Higher Officers. 6. Chairman, Board of Revenue and its members. 7. Secretary of the different departments of the Government, Special Secretaries and Chief Head of the Departments. 8. Other Very Important Person declared as such by the Government. A copy of this G.O. was issued by the office of the District Chamoli to concerned officials of Chamoli including the A.D.M. and Protocol Clerk to act accordingly. Surprisingly this document has not been filed on affidavit. A subsidiary warrant of precedence has been filed meant for only ceremonial purposes and not day-to-day functioning of the State. 37. It appears from the judgment in Justice S.T. Ramlingam's case AIR 1994 Mad 252 . Surprisingly this document has not been filed on affidavit. A subsidiary warrant of precedence has been filed meant for only ceremonial purposes and not day-to-day functioning of the State. 37. It appears from the judgment in Justice S.T. Ramlingam's case AIR 1994 Mad 252 . That the question of providing accommodation to the Hon'ble Judges of the Madras High Court had also cropped up during hearing of that case and it was observed and held at follows: Judges...do go on tours and most official tours for Inspection and other purposes. We have indicated earlier in the course of hearing of the case about matters how Judges of this Court are treated...how the Government fix their accommodation where they go in circuit work to the district and such other stations of the State.... The first Respondent is duty bound to honour the status and sovereign and Independent position of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court by directing all concerned that...(3) that the Judges' security is met equally to that of a Cabinet Minister at their residences, the Court premises and other station then the headquarters where they are on visits to such stations as well as in the public. (Emphasis supplied) 38. It is common knowledge that whenever the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court go on tour, it is the District Judges, who inform the District Magistrates for providing a reserved accommodation to them. Any dilly-dalling on the part of the District Administration is bound to embarass the District Judge, who is vested with the powers of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of a Magistrate/District Magistrate, in a number of ways, and may necessitate the cancellation of the tour itself. We are in know of facts that when one of our then Hon'ble Chief Justice visited Judgeship the V.V.I.P. room situated fn the District was allowed by the District Administration to be occupied by a student on the ground that he happens to be the grandson of one of the Ex-Presidents of India. On yet another occasion, when a senior Judge of this Court visited another Judgeship, an Inspector General of Police of the State refused to vacate the reserved room meant for the former and created unpleasant scenes but when the matter was reported to High-up, vacated the room. On yet another occasion, when a senior Judge of this Court visited another Judgeship, an Inspector General of Police of the State refused to vacate the reserved room meant for the former and created unpleasant scenes but when the matter was reported to High-up, vacated the room. The illustrations are many but we do not want either to multiply or to disclose the name and place, etc. in the larger interest of Justice which are also known to the learned Counsel for the State. It is said that silence is golden but continued silence at the cost of repeated obstruction is not always golden. 39. We were informed during the hearing of this proceeding that the Chief Secretary has assured the Court that the incident like the present one will never happen and that he had issued instructions to all concerned. We are pained to point out that despite the assurance given by the Chief Secretary of the State to us during hearing of this case, yet the Court on its administrative side again come to know that when one of its Hon'ble Judge (name not being disclosed) visited Judgeship, the Addl. Collector despite reserved allotment of accommodation, caused obstruction In occupying the same and as a result of which the State was informed which passed an order transferring him and issued warning to him and contented itself. This shows that the assurance given by the Chief Secretary has proved to be an empty formality necessitating passing appropriate direction to prevent recurrence of such incidents in future. In this context relevant is tire decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. JT 1996 (4) SC 679, holding that in addition to punishing the contemnors, the Court can pass directions to remedy the breach of its order or to prevent recurrence of contempt. (Emphasis supplied) In T.N. Seshan vs. Union of India and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 611 (Paragraph 34), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, speaking through the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, when on the request of the Chief Election Commissioner the Union revised the warrant of Precedence and put him at par of the Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court of India, observed/held as follows: Maintenance of the status of Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts is highly desirable in the national interest. We mention this because of late we find that even personnel belonging lo other forum claim equation with High Court and Supreme Court Judges merely because certain Jurisdictions earlier exercised by those Courts are transferred to them, not realizing the distinction between constitutional and statutory functionaries. We would like to impress on the Government that it should not confer equivalence or interfere with the Warrant of Precedence, if it is likely to affect the position of High Court and Supreme Court Judges, however, pressing the demand may be, without first seeing the views of the Chief Justice of India. We may add that Mr. G. Ramaswamy, learned Counsel or the C.E.C. frankly conceded that the CEC could not legitimately claim to be equated with Supreme Court Judges. We do hope that the Government will take note of this and do the needful. (Emphasis supplied) It is thus clear that independent Judiciary and unobstructed administration of Justice has to be maintained. From the decision cited above, it is also clear that the parity of the status is between the judiciary and the political executive. In our considered view, the Chief Justice of the High Court Is equal in status to that of the Chief Minister and the Judges of this High Court are equal in status to that of the Cabinet Ministers of the State and not of the State /Ministers of the State. In view of the decision in T.N. Sheshan, the Chief Election Commissioner's position vis-a-vis the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India also requires correction. We accordingly, direct the State of U.P. to make suitable amendments in G. Os./Rules in the light of our conclusion in regard to precedence and allotment of its accommodation wherever available and till then, to provide accommodation to the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court keeping this very principle in mind. It Is also relevant to remember that the allotment rules governing the allotment of accommodations in Circuit Houses provide that in case of the availability of a V.V.I.P. room, the same could be allotted to other dignitaries in order of seniority but in case it is required for the President/Vice-President/Prime Minister of India, in that event it has to be vacated by the dignitary occupying the said room. This shows that except the aforementioned three V.V.I.P. dignitaries, the room allotted to other dignitaries need not be vacated by them. This shows that except the aforementioned three V.V.I.P. dignitaries, the room allotted to other dignitaries need not be vacated by them. It is, however, clarified that if there is only one room/suite available in a Government accommodation, which is under occupation of the Chief Justice or Judges of this Court and any constitutional authority higher in rank is to be provided that very accommodation, in that event that accommodation has to he vacated and the Chief Justice and Judges, as the case may be, are to be accommodated in some other suitable accommodation by the State or its authorities. This situation, however, is likely to arise in a rare case but a workable solution has to be found out to avoid anyone's embarrassment and we hope and trust that this can be found out by the bureaucracy of this State. We wanted to avoid exercise of powers of judicial review in this regard giving repeated opportunity to the State to come up with suitable amendments in the G. Os. which earlier agreed, but later on came up with excuses. Its Inaction has compelled us to issue the aforementioned directions. On 10.1.1997 Mr. Srivastava, learned Addl. Advocate General put on record a zerox copy of letter No. 3796/23-8-97-173 C13/96, dated 9.1.1997 of the Secretary, U.P. Government addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, U.P., Lucknow informing that in regard to the subject giving proper comfort In regard to allotment in Circuit House/Inspection Bungalows for retired Chief Justices/Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, he has been directed to state that keeping to view the services rendered to the dignified posts by the retired Chief Justices/Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court Allahabad it has been decided by the Government after proper consideration that in the event of arrival of the aforementioned dignitaries in the districts, they should be provided honorable comfortable stay in the Circuit Houses and Inspection Bungalows of this State, and that accordingly strict action be taken for necessary compliance in this regard. We hope and trust and reiterate that all concerned in this State concerning allotment o1 accommodations in the Circuit House/Inspection Bungalows/any other Government accommodations in this State/concerning this State situated anywhere in the country shall henceforth, follow the aforementioned directions and the Government Order aforementioned strictly and if they violate or even attempt to violate, the District Judges of this State or any other authority or the person concerned, who comes to know of the dilly-dallying of the authority concerned shall report the matter to the Registrar of this Court for taking appropriate action against such a delinquent person/authority, apart from communicating that fact Immediately to the Chief Secretary of this State to take immediate appropriate disciplinary action against that delinquent person authority, who, in addition, shall secure immediately an appropriate accommodation for such visiting dignitary. We had heard Mr. Misra, learned Government Advocate, Sri. Rakesh Dwivedi learned Additional Advocate General of this State as well as Sri. Jain in regard to the view which we were explaining from time to time from our oral observations made in the Court but expressed anguish in regard to the shabby treatment of the administration. Sri. Jain in particular openly came out that there Is necessity to have a judicial review by this Court of the rules in regard to the allotment of the Government accommodation in this State including those of this State situated outside this State as well as necessity to Interfere with the rules of the Protocol of this State where the Judges of this Court have been bracketed with the State Minister of this State and the Chief Justice of tills Court, even though he is the highest constitutional authority of the State Judiciary, which has already been held by the Apex Court time and again and which is the third pillar of the democracy, and in placing him after the Chief Minister. According to him and rightly so, the Chief Minister, the Chief Justice of this Court, the Chairman of Legislative Council and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, they all stand on equal footing after the Governor of this State and thereafter similarly so they should have been placed the Cabinet Ministers of this State, Leaders of the opposition in council and Assembly, the Judges of this Court and the Lokayukta of this State. We hope and trust that an early action by the Executive will set at rest this unfortunate controversy at the earliest. We also need to mention that the word Puisne Judge in the Protocol Rules is somewhat a misplaced expression. The word 'Puisne' means inferior. This expression has not been used in the Constitution. The Judges of this Court while discharging their constitutional functions are not Inferior and the Chief Justice is only first amongst equals though undoubtedly he Is the administrative head of the High Court and master of the roster of the Judges. Now before we revert back to the instant: case, we notice certain decisions explaining the nature of the proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India since it was put in dispute by Sri. Jain. A Full Bench of Madras High Court in Vidya Charan Shukla vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and Another, AIR 1991 Mad 323 , after considering a number of decisions, observed as follows: To say that a contempt proceeding is a criminal proceeding and the rules that are applied to a criminal proceeding have to be applied in the contempt case is a misapprehension and a mistake in understanding the true nature of a contempt proceeding. A contempt proceeding is a proceeding of special Jurisdiction of a Court of Record and contemnor is not an accused in a criminal case although sometimes he is so described. The Courts have extended the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt and such other rules of procedure in a contempt proceeding only to emphasize that as Courts of law and Courts of Record, they must act fairly and give full opportunity to the contemnor, who may not establish his innocence but show that the allegation levelled against him are not free from doubt. In that sense, contempt proceedings are described as quasi-criminal proceedings. Otherwise, they are proceedings of a summary nature and the Courts evolve their own procedure to dispose of such proceedings. In that sense, contempt proceedings are described as quasi-criminal proceedings. Otherwise, they are proceedings of a summary nature and the Courts evolve their own procedure to dispose of such proceedings. We have, however, no hesitation, in view of the principles of law noticed by us that this Court's power as the Court of Record will extend not only to determination of the contempt but also the determination whether on the allegations brought before, it, a civil contempt is made out or a criminal contempt is made out and instead of any action of committal for contempt, the Court should make any such order which would be in the administration of Justice or not... The Courts have also to take notice of the larger and higher interests of the administration of Justice which Is a public interest and this should receive the first priority In considering whether the Court's special or Inherent power should be exercised or not. The Supreme Court in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1988) 4 SCC 592 observed as follows: The law of contempt must be judged in a particular situation. The process of due course of administration of Justice must remain unimpaired. Public interest demands that there should be no interference with judicial process and the effect of the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumstanced by public agitation or publications. It has to be remembered that even at turbulent times through which the developing countries are passing, contempt of Court means interference with the due administration of justice. In Hira Lal Dixit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 743 . The Apex Court observed as follows: It is well established, as was said by this Court in Brahma Prakash Sharma's case (B) (supra), that it is not necessary that there should In fact be an actual interference with the course of administration of Justice but that it is enough if the offending publication is likely or if it tends in any way to interfere with the proper administration of law... It should no doubt be constantly borne in mind that the summary jurisdiction exercised by superior Courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of Justice and for maintaining the authority of law as Is administered in the Court and thereby affording protection to public interest in the purity of the administration of Justice. This is certainly an extraordinary power which must be sparingly exercised but where the public interest demands it, the Court will not shrink from exercising it and imposing punishment even by way of imprisonment, in cases where a mere fine may not be adequate. After anxious consideration, we have come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances of this case, it is a fit case where the power of the Court should be exercised and that it is necessary to impose the punishment of imprisonment. People must know that they cannot with impunity hinder or obstruct or attempt to hinder or obstruct the due course of administration of Justice. In Pritam Pal vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, AIR 1992 SC 904 , the Apex Court held that "whether or not there was an intention to interfere with the administration of Justice is relevant to penalty, not to guilt." This makes it clear that an intention to interfere with the proper administration of justice is an essential Ingredient of the offence of contempt of Court and it is enough if the action complained of is inherently likely so to interfere. In Re: Vinay Chandra Misra. Referred to earlier, the Apex Court has also observed thus: It is for this purpose that the Courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of punishing those who indulge in acts whether inside or outside the Courts, which tend to undermine their authority and bring them in disrepute and disrespect by scandalizing them and obstructing them from discharging their duties without fear or favour. When the Court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual Judge who is personally attacked or scandalized, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the Judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. The foundation of the Judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the Court by creating distrust in its working the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. (Emphasis supplied) In Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 , the Apex Court observed thus: Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior Courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates Court's order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure so that purity of Court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State and the parties who approach the Courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples. To enable the Courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach lt. In the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. Anyone who lakes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. The word 'Interfere' means, in the context of the subject, any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent tire performance of duty. Obstruction of justice is to interpose obstacles or impediments, or to hinder, Impede or in any manner interrupt or prevent, the administration of Justice. The Apex Court in its recent judgment Dr. G.C. Saxena vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, through a three Judges Division Bench reiterated that "In a contempt proceedings, the motive, in other words, the mens rea is not relevant. The Apex Court in its recent judgment Dr. G.C. Saxena vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, through a three Judges Division Bench reiterated that "In a contempt proceedings, the motive, in other words, the mens rea is not relevant. What would be the effect of the act or conduct or imputation is the relevant question for decision........what is material is the effect or the tendency of the act, conduct......and whether.......it........lowers or lends to lower the authority of the Court or prejudices or tends to prejudice or interfere or tends to Interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner." We need to notice in regard to a proceeding in contempt initiated by the Patna High Court registered as M.J.C. No. 536 of 1991 Re: In the matter of initiation of proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act against tire S.D.O. (Civil) and S.D.O. (Roads), Pakur. In that case the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka had scheduled to hold his circuit Court at Pakur and Room No. 1, P.W.D. was reserved in his name from 7th to 12th April, 1991. The said reserved accommodation, however, was cancelled on account of visit of law Minister of Bihar and entire Dak Bungalow was reserved for him for 10th and 11th April, 1991. Around 2.30 p.m. of 9th April, 1991, the S.D.O. (Civil), Pakur asked him to vacate Room No. 1 by the evening of that very day on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj and Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj are scheduled to camp at Pakur in the night of 9th instant. The Addl. District Judge tried to impress upon the S.D.O. (Civil), Pakur that if he is allowed to stay at least till the night of 9th, he will be able to hold his Court In the morning of 10th and then straightaway return back to Durnka even without getting himself refreshed but that suggestion was not acceptable, the Addl. District Judge reported the incident to the Registrar of the Patna High Court telling further that asking of the S.D.O. (Civil) to vacate Room No. 1 for Dy. District Judge reported the incident to the Registrar of the Patna High Court telling further that asking of the S.D.O. (Civil) to vacate Room No. 1 for Dy. Commissioner, Sahibganj and Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj was so shocking to his conscience, that, in disgust, fie left Pakur at 3.30 p.m. on 9th itself telling further that had he been permitted to stay, hearing of at least two sessions cases would have been concluded. The Patna High Court took cognizance and initiated proceedings in contempt sua motu. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court disposed of the proceedings in contempt observing/holding as follows: The officers of the State Government are not probably aware of the scope of their duty and the scope of duty of a judicial officer who has been deputed to perform Judicial work by the High Court itself Tills question of circuit duty arises, we may point out, because the State Government has not considered it fit and proper to provide accommodation to all the judicial officers at the places where they are to perform their duties. It is not at the choice of the judicial officers concerned that they have to go on circuit duly bid this is the fashion in which they are treated when they go on such duty. It was no part of the business of this S.D.O. to make any suggestion to this Judicial officer" to come at some other lime and get the work done In one stretch instead of doing in half," He has staled that the Judicial officer concerned asked the deponent to manage die reservation for 2-3 days more but he had humbly stated dial d was beyond his capacity to do so. If he had no capacity either to make any allotment or to make any cancellation, he should not have taken any such step in the matter and should not have approached the judicial officer and made such improper suggestion to him as he had done. He had the cheek to mention in his affidavit that his suggestion" was perhaps not liked by the learned Judge. It cannot be liked by any judicial officer or any sane person. We do not like it either. To make such suggestion was itself instanced, improper, insulting and highly illegal. He had the cheek to mention in his affidavit that his suggestion" was perhaps not liked by the learned Judge. It cannot be liked by any judicial officer or any sane person. We do not like it either. To make such suggestion was itself instanced, improper, insulting and highly illegal. *** *** *** In this case, we should point out that it is a clear case of interference in administration of Justice, whereby on account of this highhanded act on the part of this officer, a particular judicial officer was prevented from performing his judicial duty. The Judiciary must not face such kind of threat in the performance of it's duly. It is more important because it involves the subordinate Judiciary. The Judicial officers constituting the subordinate Courts are not situated in the same advantageous position as the High Court Judges, who are and should be in a position to maintain the prestige and dignity of the Judiciary having regard to the constitutional position held by them but the other Judicial officers in a Slate need greater protection, particularly in performance of their duties. Accordingly, it is the duty of the High Court, under whose supervision and control these officers perform their Judicial duties, to see that these officers are allowed to perform their duties in consonance with (he prestige and dignity which is attached to the office which they locate We are more concerned with the prestige and dignity of the administration of Justice in this State and not merely with the question of humiliation of a particular officer. Having regard to the same, we think that Mr. Basudeva Prasad is justified in making his submission regarding sentence. The officer wanted to please his superior officers, i.e., the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner. He must remember that in order to please his superior officers, he must not behave in a fashion which is derogatory to the prestige of the judiciary. If he had given protection to the judicial officer concerned and for that reason if any action had been taken against him by his superior officer, then this Court would have come forward to give him protection against any high-handedness on the part of his superior officers. But he had chosen to care more for his superior officers than the cause of justice. But he had chosen to care more for his superior officers than the cause of justice. Having regard to this, we would have passed a very strong and stifler sentence had it not been for the fact that at the very outset, he had tendered his unconditional apology and in acknowledgment of the same he had put his signature on and endorsed the statement without trying to make any further attempt to Justify his conduct. In that view of the matter, we pass the following orders: This Court makes the rule absolute and holds these two officers guilty of contempt of the subordinate Court. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of the apology tendered by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Roads), Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, and having regard to the nature of the allegations made against him and his over all conduct, the Court does not think it fit and proper to pass any sentence in his case, apart from administering the warning, as we have indicated above. So far as Mr. Bishwanath Murmu, S.D.O. (Civil), is concerned, we pass the following sentence: We sentence him to a week's simple imprisonment but we remit the sentence having regard to the apology tendered by him at the very first opportunity. However, we administer a similar warning to him. We also need to notice the Calcutta Division Bench judgment in The State vs. Debabrata Bandopadhyay, District Magistrate, Nadia and Another, AIR 1964 Cal 572 . The relevant fact of that case was that M. Roy, the Subordinate Judge; Nadia was having his residence at Circuit House, Nadia in the district of West Bengal. Debabrata Bandopadhyay. The District Magistrate of Nadia literally driven out of his room In Circuit House forcibly turned him out from the Circuit House on 22.1.1961 though the subordinate Judge was actually conducting session's case and performing his judicial duties in Court. In his absence, his room in the Circuit House was locked and his personal belongings seized, publicly Inventoried and all his articles, bag and baggages were publicly carried away and dispatched and taken to police Malkhana. In his absence, his room in the Circuit House was locked and his personal belongings seized, publicly Inventoried and all his articles, bag and baggages were publicly carried away and dispatched and taken to police Malkhana. The District Magistrate took up a defence that he was the absolute authority to determine who Is to be permitted to remain In the Circuit House and for how long under the Rules of the Circuit House and thus Justified in his action ; that he had to turn out the Subordinate Judge because he thought it to be essential for the security of the Minister, Minister-in-charge of the Local Self Government and Animal Husbandry, Veterinary Department of the State who was to visit on 22.2.1964, that his action was not Intended to obstruct administration of Justice and the disruption of the work of the Court was not direct but incidental and remote result of the Judge being forced to leave the Circuit House and that he had offered alternative accommodation to the Judge. The learned Judges constituting the Division Bench after examining the Rules of the Circuit House and various case laws and several other issues Including as to whether mens rea is a necessary constituent of a contempt held the District Magistrate of Nadia guilty of gross contempt after holding that the acts or conduct should be Judged by two tests, namely, whether they are calculated to obstruct or interfere either with course of Justice or the due administration of the law in the Court and that act or conduct which lowers the authority of the Court and weakens the sense of confidence of people in the administration of Justice is contempt. We have also perused the several other decisions cited at the Bar but the position explained as above being well-settled needs no discussion. In this context, we need to observe only this much that we find substance in the contention of Sri. Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General and hold that even an attempt to obstruct or interfere with the due administration of Justice by the Judges of this Court amounts to gross Contempt of Court. Even though we have reproduced the entire report submitted by Mr. Rakhra in our judgment, we record the specific observations and findings of Mr. Rakhra in his second report at one place for the sake of brevity. Even though we have reproduced the entire report submitted by Mr. Rakhra in our judgment, we record the specific observations and findings of Mr. Rakhra in his second report at one place for the sake of brevity. They are the following: (i) In the circumstances mentioned above, making of alternative reservation could not have been a secret and the members of the staff who were running for the alternative accommodation and alternative reservation slip would definitely know when it is issued. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the District Judge would not take suitable action in time and would intentionally put the Inspecting Judge to trouble and embarrassment. The suggestion of Sri Satyajeet Thakur that despite alternative reservation being made in time, the District Judge purpose directed Hon'ble Inspecting Judge to Gopeshwar to make him angry towards direct administration has no force. (ii) The above facts show that no body took any interest in Issuing proper reservation slip reserving accommodation for three days at Chamoli Inspection House. This was despite the fact that the matter had generated heat and had been discussed amongst the District Judge, District Magistrate and Addl. District Magistrate. (iii) In the light of this discussion, the contention of Sri. Premi that after receiving cancellation order, he had a talk with the District Magistrate in the afternoon which remained inconclusive and the District Magistrate was not available thereafter appears to be reliable. (iv) The above discussion would show that although the District Administration had cancelled the long standing reservation of two suites at Gopeshwar Inspection House for Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge, no alternative arrangement was made despite the facts having come to the notice of the District Magistrate and Addl. District Magistrate. It was left to be dealt with by the office of the District Magistrate. (v) The present Commissioner Sri Subhash Kumar had also met Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge Justice Ravi S. Dhavan and expressed regrets on behalf of the administration. All these facts in the light of the discussion made above, clearly establish beyond doubt that inconvenience was caused to Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge on account of no alternative accommodation being made available in time for his Lordship, who was on inspection of the subordinate Courts. All these facts in the light of the discussion made above, clearly establish beyond doubt that inconvenience was caused to Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge on account of no alternative accommodation being made available in time for his Lordship, who was on inspection of the subordinate Courts. (vi) As I had mentioned in my earlier report, Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge being a Constitutional authority was not less than a person requiring high grade security and the Gopeshwar Inspection House has four suites. Only two of the suites had been reserved for Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge and the remaining two could be used for Hon'ble Chief Minister. The Chief Minister of Delhi could be conveniently lodged at Kothial Sain Inspection House also. Even if the District Administration was particular in lodging the Chief Minister of Delhi at P.W.D. Inspection House, Gopeshwar Itself and it was not possible to accommodate both the VIPs. At that Inspection House, the propriety demanded that looking to the stature of Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge; he should have been approached by the District Administration to make slight adjustment by making variation in the programme in order to accommodate the guest from outside. Instead of doing that, the matter was left to be dealt with by the clerks who issued cancellation letter without suggesting or offering alternative accommodation. (vii) On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that the cancellation of reservation for Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge at Gopeshwar Inspection House for 13th, 14th and 15th June, 1995 was not absolutely necessary and it was cancelled without proper application of mind not confining it to 14.6.95 only. The cancellation was done in improper and disrespectful manner telling the District Judge that reservation may be deemed to have been cancelled without offering any alternative accommodation in the cancellation letter itself. The District Magistrate Sri. Thakur, Addl. District Magistrate Sri. Pandey were also negligent In not ensuring alternative reservation within time despite being apprised of the difficulty by the District Judge. (viii) There is no material on record to prove Sri Thakur had used his influence to pressurize the owner of the rifle to sell it to Sri Yadav. It was not a case property. (ix) There is nothing on record to establish that the Chief Minister had changed his programme at the suggestion of Mr. Thakur. (viii) There is no material on record to prove Sri Thakur had used his influence to pressurize the owner of the rifle to sell it to Sri Yadav. It was not a case property. (ix) There is nothing on record to establish that the Chief Minister had changed his programme at the suggestion of Mr. Thakur. (x) There is no evidence to show that they (the District Magistrate and C.J.M.) had definitely come so close that the District Magistrate would plan to frustrate the Inspection of the High Court In order to save Mr. Yadav. (xi) The A.D.M. even after being informed of the situation and receiving Instruction from the Government did not bother to see the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge on 13.6.95. (xii) There was, thus, gross and wilful negligence on the part of the District Magistrate and the Addl. District Magistrate in dealing with the situation and this has resulted Into the inspection being frustrated and It amounts to Interference with the Judicial parameter of the administration of the subordinate Courts. Mr. Misra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Court, contended with reference to voluminous records that a gross contempt has been committed by the contemnors who were hand-in-glove for the reasons mentioned in the reports of the two District Judges and who have also taken recourse to falsehood. Their denial Is deliberate which will be apparent from the naked fact that reserved accommodation for 13th June was made through requisition slip No. 447 which was never cancelled and hence the then District Judge, Chamoli rightly took Mr. Justice D ha van to Gopeshwar, yet the chaukidar on the instruction of the district administration wrongly refused to permit the Hon'ble Judge to occupy the reserved occupation. What was cancelled by the district administration was permit No. 377 which was meant for providing reservation for 14th and 15th June. This fact was correctly reported to by the District Judge. Dehradun Mr. Rakhra as an intentional act. As per the records, the District Magistrate had made no reservation for providing accommodation to Mr. Justice Dhawan on 12th June. On 13th two suites were allotted for Mr. Justice Dhawan which were reserved for Justice Palok Basu who was on a private tour from before. Dehradun Mr. Rakhra as an intentional act. As per the records, the District Magistrate had made no reservation for providing accommodation to Mr. Justice Dhawan on 12th June. On 13th two suites were allotted for Mr. Justice Dhawan which were reserved for Justice Palok Basu who was on a private tour from before. Allotment of two suites on 13th at Gopeshwar for Justice Pal ok Basu made on 13th Itself Is further demonstrative of the motive of the district administration. The stand of the District Magistrate that he had got vacated the premises in occupation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is false. Kahalsain Inspection Bungalow of Irrigation, which was at the distance of 8 kms. only at least should have been allotted to Mr. Justice Dhavan but refusal to do so clearly demonstrate the mala-fide of the district administration in creating hindrance in the administration of Justice by Mr. Justice Dhavan. On 12th June itself one suite was reserved for the personal Secretary of the Power Minister at Gopeshwar which shows further that the defence taken is false. Really there is nothing on record to save the contemnors. The collusion between the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli Mr. Yadav and the contemnor No. 1 the then District Magistrate, however, now has not been reported to be proved. Sri. Ravi Kiran Jain, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnor No. 1 Satyajeet Thakur, before the receipt of the second report of Mr. Rakhra, had contended as follows: (i) The Instant proceeding is not maintainable as it is clear from a bare perusal of the letter of Mr. Justice Dhavan that he never Intended to initiate proceedings in contempt and, thus, Hon'ble the Chief Justice was not Justified in placing his letter before the Contempt Bench for its consideration along with the reports for considering the desirability of initiating proceedings in contempt. (ii) There was no legal material before us for framing of the charges In question inasmuch as the minutes and reports of the District Judge, Chamoli and the report dated 13.7.1995 of Mr. Rakhra, District Judge, Dehradun and the documents appended thereto do not form legal evidence or were legal material inasmuch as they all were recorded/ prepared behind the back of the contemnor violating the principles of natural Justice. Rakhra, District Judge, Dehradun and the documents appended thereto do not form legal evidence or were legal material inasmuch as they all were recorded/ prepared behind the back of the contemnor violating the principles of natural Justice. In this context he placed reliance on following decisions: A.K. Kraipak and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1969) 2 SCC 262 , Union of India vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 , State of Mysore vs. S.S. Makapur, AIR 1963 SC 375 , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623 , Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1973) 1 SCC 656 , State of Punjab vs. Dcwan Chuni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2068, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K. Ratna and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 537 , State of Orissa vs. Dr. Binapani Dei and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and Smt. Indrani Bai vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 2 SCALE 777 . (iii) The statements made in paragraphs 15 to 19, 23 to 25 and 27 to 29 of the show cause. Paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit and Paragraph 12 of the supplementary show cause shows that both District Judge had bias against the contemnor. (iv) In fact it was the District Judge; Chamoli who has committed contempt inasmuch as even though other suitable accommodations were available it was he deliberately took Mr. Justice Dhavan to the leech infested Mandal P.W.D. Rest House which was infact not at all suitable, for his accommodation. (v) If we come to a conclusion that any of the ingredients constituting contempt in our order dated 26.2.1996 by which the instant proceeding was initiated is not proved in that event this proceeding should not proceed and the Rule issued should be discharged. No specific material or circumstance was referred to in our order dated 26.2.1996 Issuing notice which is a charge which the contemnor is required to meet but does not mention anything except bald allegations. Thus, this proceeding is liable to be dropped. In this context, he referred to Paragraphs 15, 16, 22 and 41 of the decision of the Apex Court In Pritam Pal vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, AIR 1992 SC 904 . 40. Following Sri. Jain, Sri. Thus, this proceeding is liable to be dropped. In this context, he referred to Paragraphs 15, 16, 22 and 41 of the decision of the Apex Court In Pritam Pal vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, AIR 1992 SC 904 . 40. Following Sri. Jain, Sri. A.D. Giri, learned Counsel who initially appeared to press the petition filed by the I.A.S. Association about which when we observed that It has no locus, besides not at all necessary to be heard by us, then appealing as a Senior Counsel to Sri. Jain contended further as follows: (i) Resort to proceeding in contempt is to be taken sparingly, (ii) In the minutes of Mr. Premi, District Judge, Chamoli, there is no reference of. In fact, allotment of another accommodation at Chamoli by vacating the possession of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (iii) On a plain reading of the minutes of the District Judge, it is clear that it contradicts the report of Mr. Justice Dhavan In regard to the overhearing. Really Mr. Justice Dhavan was trapped by the District Judge by misleading the facts and by non-disclosure of the cancellation of the reserved accommodation, (iv) The apology was repeatedly tendered which is being reiterated. 41. Following Mr. Giri, Mr. Jain further contended that even in the cases of criminal conspiracy, it has to be proved by circumstantial evidence as held in Bhagwan Swarup vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682 (Paragraph 8) and P.K. Narayanan vs. State of Kerala, (1995) 1 SCC 142 and in the instant case, the circumstances taken together do not prove the element of conspiracy between the contemnors. 42. Sri. U.N. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Contemnor Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the men Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli and Additional Collector, Chamoli, after proceeding for about 10-15 minutes contending that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no knowledge about the visit of Justice Dhawan, when realized that the proposed visit of Justice Dhawan was intimated by the District Judge in writing to the Chief Judicial Magistrate which intimation was endorsed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate himself, withdrew the entire defence taken in these proceedings by Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the Additional Collector and pressed only the apology part and pleaded for mercy. 43. Reacting to the course adopted by Mr. Sharma, Mr. Jain strenuously contended that withdrawal of defence by Contemnor Nos. 43. Reacting to the course adopted by Mr. Sharma, Mr. Jain strenuously contended that withdrawal of defence by Contemnor Nos. 2 and 3 shall have no bearing on the defence already taken by Sri. Satyajeet Thakur. 44. To the aforementioned stand taken by the learned Counsel for the contemnors, learned Additional Advocate General contended that since the proceedings are summary in nature, the withdrawal of the defence will not have much bearing. In this regard, he has also referred to Baldeo Singh vs. Chhabl Shyam Tripathi, 1988 UPLBEC 411. 45. On 10.1.1997 Mr. Jain further submitted as follows: (i) The submissions made by him earlier hold good till to date and the second report does not Improve the position inasmuch as the charges made by us do not stand in view of our finding recorded in our order dated 13.9.1996 as we had accepted his contention that because of violation of the principles of natural Justice, the earlier report of Mr. Rakhra had stood vitiated and that Is why we had asked for his second report after giving an opportunity to all concerned, (ii) The enquiry officer has committed procedural Illegality while conducting his second enquiry who has completely misconceived the scope of his enquiry and his report was vitiated on account of bias. While developing his attack, the learned Counsel also submitted that the bias was writ large when he erroneously placed reliance on his earlier report while discarding the evidence of the S.D.M. Abrar Ahmad. The enquiry officer has failed to consider the statements made by the contemnor in Paragraphs 1 to 3, 7 to 12, 14, 15, 17 to 20, 22 and 29 to 36 of his deposition. (Hi) With reference to the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Vallabh Das vs. Narrongl, ILR 27 Bom 394 and of the Rangoon High Court in E.M. Parekh vs. Emperor, AIR 1926 Rang 188, which was approved in Sukhdeo Singh vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice, AIR 1954 SC 186 . He contended that he wants to know the charge against the Contemnor No. 1. He also contended that in view of the submission made by him earlier, there is no charge which requires any answer and unless the earlier charge is modified, it is difficult for him to proceed further. Sri. He contended that he wants to know the charge against the Contemnor No. 1. He also contended that in view of the submission made by him earlier, there is no charge which requires any answer and unless the earlier charge is modified, it is difficult for him to proceed further. Sri. Rakesh Dwivedi learned Additional Advocate General, appearing to assist us, had also contended as follows: (i) The act of the district administration in refusing to provide accommodation to Mr. Justice Dhavan in furtherance of the allotment for 11th June, 1995 not having been cancelled, ex facie constituted contempt. (ii) The cancellation of the reserved accommodation for 14th June onwards without any information to the Hon'ble Judge also constituted contempt. (iii) There was no justification on the part of the district administration to cancel the reserved accommodation for accommodating the Chief Minister of Delhi who was undoubtedly a V.I.P. but from another State, though a State-guest, and at serial No. 8 of the 1984 G.O. whereas the Hon'ble Judge was at serial No. 4. In this context, reliance was placed on Paragraphs 32 to 42 of Pritarn Pal vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur trough Registrar. (iv) The submission of Mr. Jain that this Court has committed an illegality in framing the charge on ex-parte materials are without any substance inasmuch as even in criminal cases, charges are framed ex-parte. He placed reliance on Paragraphs 1, 20, 24, 28, 29, 41 and 46 In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584 , Paragraphs 39 and 46 of In the matter of: Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, AIR 1965 SC 745 , All India Judges' Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1993) 4 SCC 288 . Red light on the Cars of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court vs. State of U.P. AIR 1993 All 211 , In Re: Scope and extent of Applicability of Flag Code and Use of National Flag on the Cars by the Puisne Judges of the High Court, 1993 All 1334, Paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 of in re Scope and Extent of Applicability of Flag Code and Use of National Flag on the Cars by the Puisne Judges of the High Court, (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1985, Shri Baradakanta Mishra vs. The Registrar of Orissa High Court and Another, (1974) 1 SCC 374 , G.N. Verma vs. Hargovind Dayal and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 744 , High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vs. Amod Kumar Srivastava, 1993 UPLBEC 378 (FB). (v) The question of mens rea or intention is irrelevant in contempt proceedings. To this context he has placed strong reliance on Hira Lal Dixit vs. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 743 , Hargovind Dayal Srivastava and Another vs. G.N. Verma and Others, AIR 1975 All 52 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction and Another, (1995) 3 SCC 507 (vi) The contemners have taken resort to false pleadings in their show cause and affidavits and thus they deserve no sympathy, to this context reliance was placed on Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 . (vii) It is true that on the very first day of his appearance Sri Satyajeet Thakur, Contemnor No. 1, has stated of tendering an apology but it was never pressed rather he went on justifying his illegal acts and thus the apology tendered need not be accepted, but that is a matter for us. 46. Coming to the contention of Mr. Jain that since Justice Dhavan never intended to Initiate proceedings in contempt against the contemnor No. f rather merely contented with writing a letter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration by the Full Court, Hon'ble the Chief Justice was not justified in putting his letter along with other record before us for considering the desirability of initiation of proceedings in contempt against Contemnor No. 1 and that for the same reason, we should not have initiated this proceeding rather we should drop it. We hold that a bare perusal of the letter of Justice Dhavan leaves no manner of doubt of the anguish and humiliation which he felt and suffered due to the act of the district administration of Chamoli. A bare reference of his expressions "that the object was that whatever be the reason, inspection of the High Court be jeopardized, interfered with and thwarted" "and locking out Inspection Judge and interference with the judicial administration of the High Court are those which affect the powers and status of the Court." It is true that he observed that these matters are for the Full Court. In this context we only need to remember that if this Court exercises the power under Article 215 of the Constitution, it does not vindicate the dignity and honour of an individual Judge but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the Administration of justice and its administration of justice. We, thus, see no merit in the objection raised In regard to the maintainability of this proceeding. We further hold that the then Chief Justice being prima facie satisfied placed the entire matter before the Contempt Bench. In doing so, the Chief Justice did no wrong. In this context, we also do not appreciate the conduct of the contemnor No. f that behind our back, he made a motion before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to place the records before another Bench when we were in seisin of the matter. The Three Judges Division Bench decision of the Apex Court in Sukhdeo Singh vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice, AIR 1954 SC 186 , has laid down the law that "for transfer from one Judge to another there again there is no original jurisdiction which he can exercise." We also need to mention that the contemnor No. 1 had to withdraw his request before Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Coming to the next submission we find no substance. Apart from the observations made by Justice Dhavan extracted as above, the following words used in his letter silences this submission. "While I arrived at the P.W.D. Inspection House with District Judge, Chamoli, it was announced to us that the District Magistrate had cancelled the scheduled reservation of the High Court which had been made a month earlier. The order of the District Magistrate had been marked as a copy to the chaukidar of the P.W.D. Inspection House. "While I arrived at the P.W.D. Inspection House with District Judge, Chamoli, it was announced to us that the District Magistrate had cancelled the scheduled reservation of the High Court which had been made a month earlier. The order of the District Magistrate had been marked as a copy to the chaukidar of the P.W.D. Inspection House. Chaukidar announced to the District Judge that the reservation of the High Court had been cancelled by the District Magistrate. Upon overhearing what the District Judge was being told by the Chaukidar, I thought it best that it would be in the best interest in keeping with the class and dignity of the High Court that I should quietly remove my presence from the P.W.D. Inspection House " The order dated 16.6.1995 of Mr. Justice Dhavan reads thus: The net result of cancellation by the District Magistrate of the accommodation in favour of the High Court for use by the Inspection Judge on Circuit for Pithoragarh, Chamoli, Uttarkashl, Tehri Garhwal and Pauri Garhwal is that the inspection of the High Court had been frustrated and amounts to interference with the Judicial parametric of administration of the subordinate Courts, a function attributed to the High Court under the Constitution. The entire purpose, apparently, has been that the Inspecting Judge should not be able to carry out the inspection. In the Nadided case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was handcuffed. In the present circumstances the Inspection Judge on circuit has been locked out and put off the inspection. Even the Chaukidar of the Inspection House, P.W.D., Chamoli was given written information by the District Magistrate, Chamoli to the effect that the accommodation reserved for the High Court for use by Mr. Justice Ravi S. Dhavan on 13, 14 and 15 June, 1995, stands cancelled. The Chaukidar thus had been instructed by the District Magistrate, Chamoli, not to permit occupation of the accommodation, which had been reserved for the High Court, on circuit-Inspection since May, last. This left the Inspection Judge on circuit Inspection with no alternative with night fall approaching and pouring rain but to take shelter in a P.W.D. hut 6 kms. away from village Mandal which itself is 13 kms. Away from Gopeshwar, i.e. 19 kms. from Gopeshwar. Then, there was no electricity and no drinking water. This left the Inspection Judge on circuit Inspection with no alternative with night fall approaching and pouring rain but to take shelter in a P.W.D. hut 6 kms. away from village Mandal which itself is 13 kms. Away from Gopeshwar, i.e. 19 kms. from Gopeshwar. Then, there was no electricity and no drinking water. In such condition, the Inspection Judge camped there with his wife and daughter in candle light and drinking water supplied by the District Judge, Chamoli. The P.W.D. inspection hut is repleted and is infested with leeches which stung every member of the Inspection Judge's family and staff. It was indicated to the Inspection Judge, that this P.W.D. Inspection hut is not a place where officials normally stay at night. The District Judge, Chamoli and the Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kama Prayag, were at call. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (Mr. B.B. Yadav) did not call on the Inspection Judge but was present at the station. At Chamoli (Gopeshwar) the Inspection Judge on circuit was intimated by the District Judge that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is under transfer and is to handover charge on 13th morning. In so far as the Chief Judicial Magistrate Is concerned, he had the Inspection Judge, High Court, in station. He avoided a call on the Inspection Judge. Cancelling the reservation In favour of the High Court, more so when the Court Is on circuit inspection, is nothing but interference with the course of the administration Justice. This mailer needs very serious enquiry and probe. 47. Before the Inspection Judge left for the circuit inspection tour, the Registrar, High Court, on 16 and 18 May, 1995 had forwarded certain matters for the attention of the Inspection Judge in the matter relating to certain complaints against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli. These papers had been marked by the Inspection Judge on circuit to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice with the following endorsements: For the kind attention of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, with the complete service record. Sd/- 17.5.1995 Registrar. One such and related file was to be placed before the Hon'ble C.J. My orders are of yesterday. Please connect. Kindly confer with me immediately, (tomorrow) at 10 a.m., if convenient. Sd/- 18.5.1995 These matters relating to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chamoli, were the subject-matters on inquiry by the High Court on circuit inspection. Sd/- 17.5.1995 Registrar. One such and related file was to be placed before the Hon'ble C.J. My orders are of yesterday. Please connect. Kindly confer with me immediately, (tomorrow) at 10 a.m., if convenient. Sd/- 18.5.1995 These matters relating to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chamoli, were the subject-matters on inquiry by the High Court on circuit inspection. An enquiry on these matters which were also marked for notice by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, was bogged and clearly interfered with when the reservation of the High Court at the P.W.D. Inspection House at Gopeshwar was cancelled. The purpose was clear that the Inspection Judge on circuit functionally as the High Court on inspection should not be able to find out further on matters which ought to be inspected. But the enquiry cannot be frustrated in this manner as this would erode the position and status of the High Court and defeat the High Court's constitutional function in its supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate Courts. The Registrar, High Court, by a D.O. letter No. C-6129 (CF)/A/95, dated 1 June. 1995 informed the District Judge. Dehradun that he had been appointed as an inquiry officer in certain matter relating to representations made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, on further details being collected from the District Judge, Dehradun, the District Judge, Chamoli Intimated that this D.O. letter was issued in pursuance of the minutes of the Administrative Committee dated 25 May. 1995 both appended. It appears that the papers which the Inspection Judge on circuit had marked to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice are either retained by the Registry or yet to be acted upon by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as there is no mention of it in the minutes of the administrative committee deliberations. But, one thing is clear that in the matter relating to an enquiry on the same officer stationed at the same place, there cannot be an enquiry by different inquiry officers. This may not be administratively appropriate lest there may be overlapping fields of enquiry. If the Inspection Judge on circuit came, had not been prevented, he would have examined the matters at hand as there has specially been reserved for this inspection of the District Judgeship at Chamoli. This may not be administratively appropriate lest there may be overlapping fields of enquiry. If the Inspection Judge on circuit came, had not been prevented, he would have examined the matters at hand as there has specially been reserved for this inspection of the District Judgeship at Chamoli. But as the Inspection Judge saw himself bundled out of the accommodation otherwise reserved for the use of the High Court-on-circuit inspection of the subordinate Courts, the functions of the High Court as Court has been thwarted to interfere in the inspections. This is one aspect of the matter. But, the Inquiry can be frustrated; otherwise the purpose of interfering with the administration of justice would be achieved. This must not be permitted to happen. Even If the Inspection Judge would have been at Allahabad, he would have required the same Inquiry Officer as chosen by the Administrative Committee to enquire into these matters so that whether it is an enquiry or an investigation, it must be composite on the same person. However, as the inspection of the High Court has been interfered with and tampered and reason why this has been done has yet to emerge, interference with the inspection amounts to interference with the business of the administration of justice. Whoever has tampered with the Court in its administration or interfered with the business of it, v/ill need to give an explanation in posterity. But, there must be a prima facie investigation on these affairs. Thus, the Inspection Judge-on-circuit (Pithoragarh/Chamoli/Uttarkashl/Tehri and Pauri upon finding that the business of the administration of Justice has been interfered with and the inspection of the District Judgeship at Chamoli has been frustrated and tampered with by locking and keeping out the Inspection Judge, let this matter be investigated, also, by the District Judge, Dehradun. In this regard, tire District Judge, Dehradun, shall investigate: (a) The circumstances under which a long standing reservation for the High Court was cancelled by the District Magistrate Chamoli, when he himself had reserved the accommodation on being intimated the tour programme of the High Court. (b) the matters which were left for inspection and investigation by the Inspection Judge on circuit in reference to the complaints which were forwarded to the High Court in relation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, photocopies of which are marked to the investigating officer in this regard. (b) the matters which were left for inspection and investigation by the Inspection Judge on circuit in reference to the complaints which were forwarded to the High Court in relation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, photocopies of which are marked to the investigating officer in this regard. All other allied matters, papers and records in matters relating to the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Chamoli, will be handed over by the District Judge to the Investigating Officer otherwise District Judge, Dehradun. at Camp: Off village Mandal P.W.D. Inspection Hut. June 16, 1995. Sd/- (Ravi S. Dhavan) Inspecting Judge-on-Circuit Pithoragrah/Chamoli/Uttarkashi/ Tehri/Pauri. There was every likelihood of Justice Dhavan having a meeting with the District Magistrate, Chamoli during the period of his inspection of the Judgeship of Chamoli but for apparent reason, the District Magistrate, Chamoli without taking any leave very cleverly absented himself and reappeared at Chamoli when Justice Dhavan had already suffered a lot. The said order was also placed before us when we had taken the cognizance. It speaks for itself. The facts stated in the minutes were not denied by the Contemnor No. 1 in his earliest affidavit also negatives the submission made by Mr. Jain. The request to call for further comments from Mr. Justice Dhavan is also being declined in view of the earlier comments of Mr. Justice Dhavan that except the facts which are on the record, he has nothing to comment. We also do not find any merit that there was contradiction in the minutes of the District Judge and the report of Mr. Justice Dhavan. The principle of natural justice cannot be put lo any straight jacket formula. While reporting the matter neither the District Judge, Chamoli nor had the District Judge, Dehradun violated it. 48. We also put on record that on 10th January, 1997 we had observed that we had not set aside the first report of Mr. Rakhra submitted to Mr. Justice Dhavan rather we have given an opportunity to all concerned including Mr. While reporting the matter neither the District Judge, Chamoli nor had the District Judge, Dehradun violated it. 48. We also put on record that on 10th January, 1997 we had observed that we had not set aside the first report of Mr. Rakhra submitted to Mr. Justice Dhavan rather we have given an opportunity to all concerned including Mr. Rakhra to submit a further report after giving an opportunity to all concerned and thereby addition of the word in our earlier order "coupled with the second report of the enquiry officer" and that addition will mean only piling unreason upon technicality and we may adjourn the proceeding and if the contemnors who are present in Court do not understand the charge which we may amend accordingly, then Sri Jain proceeded to address us on merits as well. In this context, it is also relevant to Slate that when we observed that is it a fact that the contemnor No. 1 does not understand the nature, and the scope of these proceedings, which are summary in nature? Sri Jain very fairly stated that his client, who is an I.A.S. Officer, does understand but having regard to the facts stated in his affidavits Including the latter one, the proceedings be dropped. Thereafter, the other contemnors, who were also present in Court, did not address us reiterating their defence, are fully dependent on the mercy of the Court. We also put on record in fairness to Mr. Jain that no sooner we reserved our orders, Mr. Jain asked Contemnor No. 1 lo come in front of ours and tendered unqualified apology. Mr. Giri had also emphasized that contemnor No. 1 is a responsible high officer and thus his apology which he tendered on the very first day of his appearance be accepted and the matter closed. It is true that in the petition which the contemnor had filed on the very first day of his appearance, he stated the factum of tendering apology but that apology was not pressed, rather he proceeded lo defend his action but falsely pleading that he was not responsible for the cancellation of the reserved allotment in favour of Mr. Justice Dhavan, who had not accepted it. There is a settled difference between apology and mercy. Justice Dhavan, who had not accepted it. There is a settled difference between apology and mercy. The apology was sought to be pressed only when during the course of submissions, we demonstrated that the defence of the contemnor No. 1 that he had no knowledge about the reservation besides cancellation in favor of Mr. Justice Dhavan had no legs to stand. Following, what was observed by the Supreme Court in J. Vasudevan vs. D.R. Dhananjaiya, (1995) 6 SCC 249 . We hold that if in such a situation mercy is shown, in that event the effect would be that that would be a death knell to the rule of law and this Court being highest Court of the State should not be a party to it. Harsh though ii may look but, the Court feels duty bound to award proper punishment to uphold the Rule of Court, despite the fact that contemnor No. 1 was the hinges officer of the district, yet fie and the contemnor No. 3 indulged in an act of contempt, they deserve to be punished suitably, so that nobody could lake to his head to undermine the authority of this Court and try to block the due course of its administration of justice. We also observe that there is absence of any extenuating circumstance to show leniency to them as done by the Calcutta and Patna High Courts. Even according to the decision of the Government taken in 1984, the Judges of this Court figure as against Serial No. 4 whereas the Chief Minister to Delhi figured at Serial No. 8. It is difficult to believe the stand of the Contemnor No. 1 that he was not aware of this decision of the Government specially when it has come on the record from the present District Magistrate, Chamoli. His reliance on the precedence issued by the President Secretariat meant for only ceremonial is nothing but merely a pretext which is unworthy of acceptance. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the District Administration, Chamoli had carefully tried to obstruct the administration of justice of the Inspecting Judge, Chamoli and rendered itself guilty of contempt of Court. A stand has been taken that it was the then District Judge, Chamoli who had committed contempt of Court in taking Justice Dhavan lo Mandal Rest. House whereas better accommodations were available in the civil Court building itself. A stand has been taken that it was the then District Judge, Chamoli who had committed contempt of Court in taking Justice Dhavan lo Mandal Rest. House whereas better accommodations were available in the civil Court building itself. In this regard, we made queries and we have been reported through our Joint Registrar (Confidential) vide his note dated 22.5.199G that there is only one small rest room in the civil Court building. We also need to point out that it would not have been proper for the Inspecting Judge to have his stay in the civil Court building. Mr. Jain also contended that the charge framed in the notice was a conspiracy between Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli and the District Magistrate, Chamoli. For constituting 'conspiracy' there must be meeting of minds of two persons but none of the reports submitted to Justice Dhavan there is nothing. Accordingly, the charge of conspiracy must be dropped. The word 'conspiracy' according to Compact Edition of Oxford English Dictionary, 1971 means die action of conspiring; combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose. In his second report, the Enquiry Officer has reported to the effect that there is no material to positively hold that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli and the District Magistrate, Chamoli were in collusion. This finding of the Enquiry Officer is accepted, yet the question is whether the contemnors Nos. 1 and 3 had committed contempt or not? 49. True it is that we resort to proceeding In contempt sparingly but the facts and circumstances of the instant case referred to in the report of Mr. Rakhra speak for themselves and if we refuse to arrive at the logical conclusion in the Instant proceeding, it will mean perpetuating an apparent illegality and naked act of interference in due course of administration of Justice of this Court. In course of submissions, we also made clear to Mr. Jain as well as to Mr. Giri that even assuming that the findings of conspiracy between Contemnor Nos. In course of submissions, we also made clear to Mr. Jain as well as to Mr. Giri that even assuming that the findings of conspiracy between Contemnor Nos. 1 and 2 are not sustainable, yet if we come to a conclusion that contemnor No. 1 has blocked the administration of justice/has interfered with the due course of administration of justice, in that event he can alone be held guilty of contempt of Court, to whom both learned Counsel agreed, but contended that no case has been made out cither by then District Judge, Chamoli or the Enquiry Officer (District Judge, Dehradun). Besides whatever they have reported, it has been done ex-parte without issuance of any notice and behind the back of contemnor No. 1 and thus, should not be relied upon. The defence of ex-parte has disappeared when we directed Mr. Rakhra to hold further enquiry during which all concerned participated and further report submitted after fully considering entire facts and circumstances. From the report dated 14th June, 1995 sent by the Contemnor No. 3 the Additional Collector to the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri, it appears that though he was the Additional Collector, he sent his report as District Magistrate, Chamoli. Even though the 1984 G.O. of our State clearly showed the visiting Chief Minister of Delhi who was on an unofficial tour, which was circulated to all concerned including the District Magistrate of Chamoli and thereby it is not possible to accept the explanations furnished by the District Magistrate, Chamoli as well as A.D.M. Chamoli that they are not aware of the G.O. Their reliance on the rank and precedence of the President Secretariat meant for only ceremonial purposes was wholly misplaced and is rejected. It is lo be pointed out that the Contemnor No. 3 himself reported to the Commissioner that reservation of the Inspection Bungalow, Gopeshwar was cancelled only in regard lo 14th June, 1995 and that the reservation for 13th and 15th June, 1995 were intact. Thus, even according to the district administration of Chamoli the reserved accommodation meant for 13th June, 1995 was not cancelled. It is not understandable as to how and under what authority the very district administration instructed not to provide reserved accommodation to Mr. Justice Dhavan on 13th June, 1995. Thus, even according to the district administration of Chamoli the reserved accommodation meant for 13th June, 1995 was not cancelled. It is not understandable as to how and under what authority the very district administration instructed not to provide reserved accommodation to Mr. Justice Dhavan on 13th June, 1995. From the records it is clear that the statement that the reserved accommodation remained Intact for 15th June was also a wrong statement. Having perused the entire evidence led before Mr. Rakhra, we do not agree with the submissions that we should not accept his second report. We do not find any (law in the conduct of the second proceedings by him. In fact his first report was merely in form of an information to the Court. So was the minutes and the report of the D.J. Chamoli and in preparing them, there was no question of violation of principle of natural Justice. This we had made very clear by our oral observations before we had proceeded to call a further report from Mr. Rakhra. We do not want to make our judgment more bulky and fully concur with the observation of Mr. Rakhra who has submitted his report uninfluenced by his earlier observations and findings which nullify the entire grievance and accept them. As a necessary consequence, all the prayers of the Contemnor No. 1 is rejected. 50. Now we come to the contemnor No. 2, namely, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli. In view of the stand taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli we had made enquiries from the office of this Court and through the officer of this Court from the present District Judge, Chamoli. The present Incharge District, Chamoli at Gopeshwar sent a Fax message dated April, 1995 which reads as follows: To, The Registrar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad From: The In-charge District Judge, Chamoli at Gopeshwar. No. 309/Admn.-20/95, dated Gopeshwar April 15, 1996. Subject: Knowledge of visit programme of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Dhavan, Inspecting Judge of the Chamoli region by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli Sri Ram Babu Yadav. Sir, In compliance of your telephone instructions dated 15.4.1995 regarding knowledge of the visit programme of the Hon'ble Mr. No. 309/Admn.-20/95, dated Gopeshwar April 15, 1996. Subject: Knowledge of visit programme of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Dhavan, Inspecting Judge of the Chamoli region by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli Sri Ram Babu Yadav. Sir, In compliance of your telephone instructions dated 15.4.1995 regarding knowledge of the visit programme of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhavan, Inspecting Judge of Chamoli region by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli Sri Ram Babu Yadav, I have the honour to say that Sri M.S. Premi, the then District Judge, Chamoli vide his Administrative Order No. 13/95 issued instructions to all Judicial Officers and Members of Staff of this Judgeship that Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Dhavan, Inspecting Judge, of this region were pleased to come on Inspection in between 12.6.1995 to 19.6.1995 in this Judgeship. All Judicial Officers and Members of Staff were required to remain present in their respective Offices during the period and no one shall be granted leave during this period. Judicial Officers were directed to remain present during Court hours in their Courts and they can call upon the Lordship after office hours with prior Intimation to me. This administrative Order No. 13 of 1995, dated 23.2.1995 was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli for information and necessary compliance on 25.5.1995. The knowledge of the visit programme of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Dhavan, Inspecting Judge of this region itself appears from the endorsement made by Sri Ram Babu Yadav, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli at Gopeshwar, dated 25.5.1995 on the copy of Administrative Order No. 13 of 1995, dated 23.5.1995, which was sent to him for compliance. Copy of Administrative Order No. 13 of 1995 dated 23.5.1995, with side endorsement made by Sri. R.B. Yadav, then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, dated 25.5.1995 is enclosed herewith for favour of your kind perusal. The information is submitted accordingly as above. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Shiv Dutt) Enclosures: Copy of Administrative Order J/C District Judge, Chamoli No. 13/1995, dated 23.5.1995. at Gopeshwar. Along with his aforementioned Fax Message he also sent a Fax copy of Administrative Order No. 13 of 1995 containing the endorsement of the Contemnor on 25.5.1995. We also showed Fax message to Sri. U.N. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnor as well as through him to the contemnor. After looking the endorsement Sri. at Gopeshwar. Along with his aforementioned Fax Message he also sent a Fax copy of Administrative Order No. 13 of 1995 containing the endorsement of the Contemnor on 25.5.1995. We also showed Fax message to Sri. U.N. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnor as well as through him to the contemnor. After looking the endorsement Sri. U.N. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for Contemner No. 2 accepted the factum that the deponent thus had knowledge about the proposed tour programme of Justice Dhavan. Thus, it is clear that the deponent has taken recourse to lies before this Court. The office has placed before us the minutes of the meetings held on August 23, 1995. From the Minutes aforementioned Agenda No. 20 was as follows: 20. Sri. R.I.S. Yadav, the then C.J.M. Chamoli consideration of two letters dated 19.7.1995 and 20.7.1995 of Hon'ble R.S. Dhavan, J. along with the report of Sri K.S. Rakhra, District Judge, Dehradun, (Deferred matter). The resolution of the Administrative Committee in regard to Agenda No. 20 was as follows: 20. Considered the material on record. Resolved that Mr. R.B. Yadav, the then C.J.M. Chamoli, at present Civil Judge, Pauri, be placed under suspension pending enquiry. Sri. D.K. Trivedi, the District Judge, Meerut is appointed as Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary enquiry against Mr. R.B. Yadav entrusted to Mr. K. S. Rakhra, District Judge, Dehradun is transferred to Sri. D.K Trivedi, District Judge, Meerut. From the aforesaid Agenda and the Resolution attached, it is clear that before the Administrative Committee, letters dated 19th June, 1995 and 20th June, 1995 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi S. Dhavan along with report of the District Judge, Dehradun was put up by the office for consideration by the Administrative Committee and considering them the Administrative Committee resolved to place Contemnor No. 2 under suspension pending enquiry appointing the District Judge, Meerut as an Enquiry Officer. Thus, there is no truth in the stand of Contemnor No. 2 that on his request the enquiry entrusted to District Judge; Dehradun was transferred to District Judge, Meerut. It is somewhat unfortunate that Contemnor No. 2 being a responsible Judicial Officer of this State has taken recourse to another falsehood in his affidavit. On our query the office also reported to us that the District Judge, Meerut has not completed his enquiry. It is somewhat unfortunate that Contemnor No. 2 being a responsible Judicial Officer of this State has taken recourse to another falsehood in his affidavit. On our query the office also reported to us that the District Judge, Meerut has not completed his enquiry. Thus, the deponent made deliberated false statement in his affidavit dated 15th March, 1996. True, it is that subsequently the District Judge, Meerut, who was the Enquiry Officer, had submitted his report dated May 18, 1996 which is under consideration by the Administrative Committee of the Court. We also got called for the records of the office of this Court to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the claim of the Petitioner that on his request the enquiry was transferred from the District Judge, Dehradun to the District Judge, Meerut. The office submitted the record from which it transpires that the District Judge, Dehradun's report was pursuant to preliminary enquiry, after consideration of which the Administrative Committee entrusted District Judge, Meerut for final disciplinary enquiry. Thus, there is no substance in the stand of the Petitioner. When, we pointed out this to Sri. U.N. Sharma, the learned Counsel for Contemnor No. 2, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli left with no option. He with his usual fairness conceded that the stand of the deponent taken In this regard is not true. We have also been made aware by the office that in regard to the shooting incident in the Forest in which the hands of the son and maternal nephew were involved and other matter, an enquiry by the Vigilance is still pending against Contemnor No. 2. Yet In view of the findings recorded by Mr. Rakhra in his second report that there is no evidence to show that the District Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate had definitely come to close that the District Magistrate would plan to frustrate the Inspection, this proceeding is dropped against the Contemnor No. 2. However, in view of our findings that he has taken recourse to falsehood in his affidavit, demonstrated as above, we issue a notice to him to show cause why he suitably be not punished or a prosecution be not launched for swearing a false affidavit? Show cause, if any, to be submitted within one month. Since one of us (N.B. Asthana. Show cause, if any, to be submitted within one month. Since one of us (N.B. Asthana. J.) Is to retire in couple of days, the matter be placed before an appropriate bench under orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice immediately after one month. 51. We also express our anguish when the Contemnor No. 1 has taken recourse to falsehood in his affidavit in making a statement on oath that Mr. Rakhra has not sent any record to support his findings though after having found list of documents along with the report Mr. Jain begged apology on behalf of the Contemnor No. 1 and sought our permission to withdraw this allegation. 52. We also do not find any merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Contemnor No. 1 that he was seriously prejudiced due to non-summoning of the then S.D.M Sri. Abrar Ahmad. The question as to whether Mr. Abrar Ahmad vacated the inspection bungalow at Chamoli was irrelevant besides nothing prevented the Contemnor No. 1 to produce Sri. Abrar Ahmad as his own witness before the enquiry officer or to ask him to make statement on an affidavit and file it before this Court for our consideration. 53. We also do not find that the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Contemnor No. 1 are of any help to him. We hold the Contemnor Nos. 1 and 3 to the guilty. We reject their apology but having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we convict them and detain them till our rising. 54. This proceeding is disposed of accordingly. 55. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this judgment to Sri. P.P. Srivastava learned Addl. Advocate General for its communication to and follows up of the directions by the State of U.P. 56. Before parting, we also record our gratitude to the valuable assistance rendered by Sri. V.S. Misra, who has entered appearance on behalf of the Court, Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri. Prabodh Gaur, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri. Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Counsel in disposal of this proceeding.