JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: This Mandamus Appeal is at the instance of a writ petitioner and is directed against the order dated February 4, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant in terms of the order passed by the said learned Judge in another writ application being W.P. No. 1437 of 1997 (Bidyut Kumar Guha Roy vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.). 2. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the facts, circumstances and the cause of action of the aforesaid W.P. No. 1437 of 1997 (Bidyut Kumar Guha Roy vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) are totally different from those of the writ petition filed by the appellant being W.P. No. 20305 (W) of 1997 and as such the learned trial Judge erred in disposing of the appellant's writ application in terms of the order passed in W.P. No. 1437 of 1997. Thus, according to the appellant, the learned trial Judge ought to have disposed of his writ application on merit. 3. To appreciate the contention of the appellant, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal may be summarised thus : (a) The appellant, having keen interest in Alternative System of Medicines, intended to prosecute studies on the aforesaid subject for the purpose of serving the poor section of the community at a lower cost in comparison with that of modern medicine. (b) Accordingly, having been attracted by the advertisement in different newspapers given by Dr, Pradip Kumar Biswas, the respondent No. 13 on behalf of his institutions, the appellant collected prospectus and on payment of requisite fees took admission in the Medical College of Alternative Medicine at 3, Canal Street, Calcutta-14 on July 12, 1997. (c) At the time of admission in the aforesaid college the appellant was given to understand by the respondent no.13 that his institution was the only institution on Alternative Medicines and that the same is recognised by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal and accepted by the Medical Council of India, Govt. of India and also approved by the High Court at Calcutta and regular advertisements in different newspapers have been given by the respondent no. 13 claiming as above. of India and also approved by the High Court at Calcutta and regular advertisements in different newspapers have been given by the respondent no. 13 claiming as above. (d) Subsequently, the appellant has come to learn that the said Institution is not recognised by the Medical Council of India. The appellant has thus been duped by the false representation of the respondent no.13. (e) The appellant therefore filed a writ application before the learned Single Judge being W.P. No. 20305 (W) of 1997 thereby praying inter alia for a writ of mandamus commanding the State respondents to take appropriate legal action against the respondent nos. 10 to 13 and to stop such deceiving publication on behalf of the respondents no. 11 to 13. (f) In the writ application filed by one Bidyut Kumar Guha Roy being W.P. No. 1437 of 1997, the said Guha Roy made allegations against one Dr. S.K. Agarwal and his institution on alternative medicine viz. Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and Open International University for Alternative Medicines and in the said writ application neither the appellant nor the respondents no. 11 to 13 are parties. 4. On April 23, 1998, when the instant appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned senior advocate appearing in support of the instant appeal had drawn our attention to the prospectus of the concerned Institution as well as the advertisements given on its behalf in the newspapers which are annexures to the application for stay. We were at our wits’ end to find that in the aforesaid prospectus and the advertisements, the aforesaid Medical College has been described as one “approved by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide Matter No. 546 of 1988” and “accepted by Indian Medical Council, Government of India vide C.R. No. 2419 (W) of 1988 (High Court, Calcutta)”. 5. Mr. Sengupta, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 11 to 13 on that day placed reliance upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by his clients before this court and submitted that at the instance of his clients this court in Matter No. 546 of 1988 passed an order restraining the State respondents from creating any disturbance in any manner whatsoever in working of the said Institution. By the said order, Mr. Sengupta claimed, this court characterised this Institution as "meant for imparting education to its system which is alternative system of medicine". By the said order, Mr. Sengupta claimed, this court characterised this Institution as "meant for imparting education to its system which is alternative system of medicine". 6. On that day viz. April 23, 1998, Mr. Sengupta, however, did not conclude his submission and prayed for adjournment for the purpose of taking further instruction from his clients. We allowed his prayer and fixed the matter on April 27, 1998. However, the members of the Bar resolved not to attend court on April 27, 1998 for the sad demise of two of their senior members as a result this appeal was again taken up on April 29, 1998. 7. On April 29, 1998, at the very outset Mr. Sengupta fairly conceded that it was a grave fault on the part of his clients in describing respondent nos. 11 and 12 as being approved by High Court. He however submitted that his clients did not properly realise the implication of mentioning the name of this court in the prospectus and advertisements and those were ingenuous acts on the part of his clients. Mr. Sengupta on that day concluded his argument by assuring this court on behalf of his clients that in future either in the prospectus or in any advertisement the name of this court or reference to any case decided by this court would not be given. 8. Immediately after the conclusion of the argument, no sooner had Mr. Sengupta left the court after taking our leave than our attention was drawn to a supplementary affidavit affirmed on April 27, 1998 by Dr. Pradip Kumar Biswas, the respondent no. 13. It appears that the said affidavit was introduced in the record of the case on that very day viz. April 29, 1998 although no leave was taken from the court to file the said supplementary affidavit. 9. The relevant portion of the aforesaid affidavit is quoted hereunder : “..................................................................... That this deponent states that the Hon'ble Chief Justice along with some other Judges of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court attended the 5th International Conference of Alternative Medicines held at Park Hotel, Calcutta on 1.12.97. A xerox copy of Ananda Bazar Newspaper photograph of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court along with Dr. That this deponent states that the Hon'ble Chief Justice along with some other Judges of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court attended the 5th International Conference of Alternative Medicines held at Park Hotel, Calcutta on 1.12.97. A xerox copy of Ananda Bazar Newspaper photograph of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court along with Dr. S.K. Agarwal, President, Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, 80, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta-20 who is facing forgery charge for forgoing the Seal and Signature of the learned 5th Assistant District Judge, Alipore in a declaration announcing the forming of Open International University of Alternative Medicines and the Programme announcement published in The Statesman, Newspaper 1.12.97 and 7.12.1997 edition as Advertisement are annexed herewith as X and Y to this affidavit and may form part of the appeal and stay application. .........................................................................................................................” 10. The photographs annexed to the aforesaid affidavit, however, falsify the averments of the respondent no.13 as quoted above. A person, not recognising the Chief Justice of this Court and Mr. Justice S.K. Mookherjee standing next to him by face, may get confused and believe that the so-called President of the Board of Alternative Medicines is standing next to the Chief Justice. 11. In view of the deliberate false statement made by the respondent no.13 in the aforementioned supplementary affidavit, which in our view is per se Contempt of Court, we, on the assurance of Mr. Debatosh Khan the learned advocate for the respondent no.13 that his client would be present in court on the next day, instead of issuing any process for production of the respondent no. 13, posted the matter on the next day viz. April 30, 1998 at 2.00 P.M. 12. On April 30, 1998 the respondent no.13 was personally present in court and Mr. Sengupta, the learned counsel appearing on his behalf admitted that wrong statement was made in the affidavit dated April 27, 1998 that the Chief Justice of this Court is photographed along with one Dr. S.K. Agarwal, the alleged President of Indian Board of Alternative Medicine, 80, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta-20. 13. Mr. Sengupta further submitted that he was not aware of the fact that such an affidavit was affirmed by his client and was filed in the record of the case. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, the alleged President of Indian Board of Alternative Medicine, 80, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta-20. 13. Mr. Sengupta further submitted that he was not aware of the fact that such an affidavit was affirmed by his client and was filed in the record of the case. Mr. Sengupta frankly conceded that he failed to find any relevancy of the said Affidavit for the purpose of disposal of the instant appeal as the writ petitioner/appellant has neither claimed any relief against the said Dr. S.K. Agarwal or the Indian Board of Alternative Medicine nor are they parties to the instant appeal. 14. It will not be out of place to mention here that in the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises, the appellant herein made allegations of fraud against respondent nos. 10 to 13 and complained inaction on the part of the respondent nos. 1 to 9, particularly of the state respondents for not taking appropriate step against the respondent nos. 10 to 13. 15. Mr. Sengupta on that day on behalf of the respondent no.13 tendered unqualified apology for affirming false statement in the affidavit and prayed for time till May 5, 1998 for the purpose of enabling the respondent no.13 to offer unconditional apology in writing for affirming the affidavit dated April 27, 1998 and for filing the said unnecessary false statement in Court and also to give an undertaking that in future the respondent no.13 will not either in the prospectus of the respondents no. 11 and 12 or in any advertisement mention the name of this Court or give reference to any case decided by this Court. We acceded to the said prayer and fixed May 5, 1998 for orders. 16. On May 5, 1998 a further supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.13. After going through the said affidavit we find that the same is not in tune with the submission made by Mr. Sengupta on April 30, 1998. On that day, as indicated above, Mr. Sengupta expressed sincere regret for filing the affidavit dated April 27, 1998 containing deliberate false and uncalled-for statement and prayed for time for putting in writing the unconditional apology and undertaking of his client. The affidavit filed today does not manifest signs of repentance on the part of the respondent no.13. On that day, as indicated above, Mr. Sengupta expressed sincere regret for filing the affidavit dated April 27, 1998 containing deliberate false and uncalled-for statement and prayed for time for putting in writing the unconditional apology and undertaking of his client. The affidavit filed today does not manifest signs of repentance on the part of the respondent no.13. At the very outset he has declared that he has filed this affidavit in compliance with our direction although we passed no such direction to file any affidavit. Then be has tendered his so called "unqualified apology"; but not for making deliberate false and uncalled-for statement and for filing the same in court without our leave. His "unconditional apology" is tendered for "not making statements properly in sub-paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit" affirmed by him on April 29, 1998. Suffice it to say, no affidavit was affirmed by the respondent no. 13 on April 29, 1998. The affidavit on record appears to have been affirmed on April 27. 1998. Thereafter the respondent no.13 proceeds to explain his false statement made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit. According to him, he intended to mention not only the name of Chief Justice but also that of Justice Samir Kumar Mookherjee in the said paragraph and the inadvertent omission on his part in not mentioning the name of Justice Samir Kumar Mookherjee was "neither deliberate nor wilful". Hence his unqualified apology for "such omission". 17. In the penultimate paragraph of the affidavit the respondent no.13 has come forward with his undertaking "as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court" that he shall not make any newspaper advertisement on behalf of the respondent nos. 10 to 12 with the following words : ''This Institution is approved and recognised by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court Constitutional Bench". 18. Even at the cost of repetition we cannot help reiterating that we passed no direction for giving any undertaking and that it was the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 11 to 13 who assured this court that his clients would give an undertaking in writing that in future neither the name of this court nor reference to any case decided by this court will be given in the prospectus of the Institution and also in the advertisements given in the newspapers on behalf of his clients. 19. 11 to 13 who assured this court that his clients would give an undertaking in writing that in future neither the name of this court nor reference to any case decided by this court will be given in the prospectus of the Institution and also in the advertisements given in the newspapers on behalf of his clients. 19. We are constrained to say that the undertaking assured by Mr. Sengupta is not at all reflected in the penultimate paragraph of the affidavit. 20. At this stage it is profitable to mention that although Mr. Sengupta on April 30, 1998 in the presence of the respondent no.13 undertook not to publish any advertisement in the newspaper mentioning the name of this court or giving reference to any case decided by this court, our attention has been drawn by Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the appellant to the advertisement given on behalf of the respondent nos. 11 to 13 in “The Telegraph”, and “Ananda Bazar Patrika” both dated May 5, 1998 wherein the following statements have been made : “N.B. Only this Institution's qualified practitioner has practising right in Alternative Medicines established as per Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India by Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide Matter No. 546 of 1988”. 21. We are thus not prepared to accept the submission of Mr. Sengupta that the aforesaid act of his client is an ingenuous one; on the other hand, after going through the materials on record we have no hesitation in our mind to conclude that the respondent nos. 10 to 13 by their ingenious acts as mentioned above have utilised the name of this Court for promoting their business which cannot but be termed as "Criminal Contempt" within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 22. At any rate, we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent no.13 as regards his false statement made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit affirmed on April 27, 1998. We are further convinced that the said affidavit containing deliberate false and uncalled for statements was introduced in the case record without taking our leave with a sinister motive. The respondent no.13 could not offer any explanation why the said affidavit was introduced in the case record when the fact stated in the affidavit is not necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal. 23. The respondent no.13 could not offer any explanation why the said affidavit was introduced in the case record when the fact stated in the affidavit is not necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal. 23. Thus, we hold that the respondent no.13 is guilty of Criminal Contempt of Court not only for creating an impression in the mind of the public that this court has approved the respondent nos. 10 to 12 as having, valid authority to impart education in alternative medicine by giving advertisement in newspapers and claiming as above in the prospectus but also for affirming deliberate false statement in the affidavit and introducing the same in the case record without the leave of the court with an evil intention. 24. In the facts an circumstances of the case we impose a fine of Rs. 2,000/- upon the respondent no.13 to be paid within a week failing which he will undergo a simple imprisonment for 7 days. 25. We now proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit. 26. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and after going through the materials on record we find substance in the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya that the subject matter of W.P. No. 1437 of 1997 is different from the one filed by the appellant and that by the order passed in W.P. No. 1437 of 1997, the writ application filed by the appellant cannot be effectively disposed of. In our opinion, it was the duty of the learned trial Judge to dispose of the writ application No. 20305 (W) of 1997 filed by the appellant on merit. 27. However, as we have heard the learned advocates for the parties on merit, instead of remanding the matter, we propose to dispose of the same by restraining the respondent nos. 10 to 13 from using the name of this Court or giving reference to any case decided by this Court either in the prospectus or in any advertisement so that no impression is created in the mind of the public that this Court has approved the said Institutions or recognised those as having authority to impart knowledge about the system of alternative medicine. 28. We further make it clear that the appellant is at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the respondent nos. 28. We further make it clear that the appellant is at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the respondent nos. 10 to 13 if he thinks that he has been hoodwinked by the misstatement of those respondents. If such legal action is initiated, the same will be disposed of in accordance with law. 29. The stay application and the appeal itself are thus disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. No order as to costs. Prabha Shanker Mishra, CJ.: I agree. Appeal disposed of in terms.