Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. There was no occasion for the Court to take out proceedings today but by now it is very clear that a mention, which was made yesterday for early hearing and denied, is being continued repeatedly today through other sources. 2. In the Chief Justices Court the first Bench which convened was that of the Chief Justice and Hon ble S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. While the Court had initiated the proceeding of a hearing of a matter before it, two ladies seemed to be approaching the dais and had, in fact, stepped on the dais below the Judges. When this was objected to by the Bench Secretary advising them to step down, they did not. Thereafter the State Counsel present, Mr. R.K. Merathia, Government Pleader II, asked the ladies to step back and behind the bar of counsels dais. They were advised by learned counsel for the State that whatever they desire to mention they have to do that from the bar of the Court and not on the dais, below the Bench. 3. The ladies presented their mention slip. Since the ladies had appeared before the Bench in person, the Court was unaware whether they were making a mention in a matter in which they truly appear in person or a matter in which they are represented. As they were mentioning, the Bench Secretary asked them to hand over their mention slip. The mention slip is undated. It refers to cases. These are C.W.J.C. No. 3153 of 2000 R, C.W.J.C. No. 1880 of 2000 R and C.R. No. 58 of 2000 R. The slip mentions the Court of Hon ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K.Prasad. It mentions matters filed free of cost by one so called "Jharkhand Ratna Public Spirited Person and National Human Rights Activist Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy, Shukla Colony Hinoo, Ranchi". It is also stated in this mention slip that the Chief Justice should enquire into the matters of an institution by the name of Delhi Public School, Ranchi, which has been duly spoiled and that the students, parents, teachers and entire community are tremendously suffering. Ranjit Kumar Roy, Shukla Colony Hinoo, Ranchi". It is also stated in this mention slip that the Chief Justice should enquire into the matters of an institution by the name of Delhi Public School, Ranchi, which has been duly spoiled and that the students, parents, teachers and entire community are tremendously suffering. The mention slip also draws the attention of the Court to "the most deteriorated condition of electricity by B.S.E.B." On the mention slip it was desired that a date be fixed for hearing after the Puja holidays and the mention slip questioned the order of their Lordships the Hon ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and the Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K. Prasad by which apparently an earlier mention was denied with a direction that the matter be placed for admission after the Puja holidays. Instead, the mention slip desired that a specific date be fixed. So, it was also indicated by the ladies. 4. The Bench Secretary told the ladies that the regular Bench will be sitting after the present Bench has transacted its proceedings and any mention which they desire to make, they may before the Court which will be constituted of the Chief Justice and the Hon ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal. It is with much difficulty that the ladies withdrew from the bar of the Court and not without making a comment or too. The mention slip was retained by the Bench Secretary and, in the meantime, he had upon an indication of the Court, sent for the record. 5. The Court is recording this as the ladies returned now to continue their mention before the present Bench (the Chief Justice and the Hon ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal,). The mention was repeated for the benefit of the other Hon ble Judge. When they had said what they had to say, the Court indicated to them that the record shows that on a mention, which was made on a mention slip dated 14 September 2000, signed by one Ranjit Kumar Roy, the Court had already passed a judicial order on 15 September 2000, six days ago, to the effect that the case would be listed after the Puja holidays. For the record the order of the Court reads, "Let this case be placed for admission after Puja holidays". For the record the order of the Court reads, "Let this case be placed for admission after Puja holidays". This order was passed on a mention slip of which notice was given to the Advocate General, Bihar, Ranchi, on 14 September, 2000. The mention slip reads "Please take notice that the writ petition with annexure is being served upon you for your use and reference". The case itself was filed six days ago, and carries an order for its listing after Puja vacations, for admission. The vacations begin after next week. 6. In the circumstances, now it is clear these ladies had apparently been sent to again make a mention on which an order had already been passed on 15 September, 2000. These ladies clearly were making a mention on behalf of Ranjit Kumar Roy, who has presented his petition in person. This petition C.W.J.C. No. 3153 of 2000 R; Ranjit Kumar Roy V/s. State of Bihar & Others, has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation. The Court is not going into the merits of the case. Suffice it to say, the record mentions that the petition requires transfer of the Principal, makes allegations against the Board of Governors and allegations of financial irregularities and seeks investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. As an order had already been passed on the mention slip, the Court directed that this slip be consigned as no other order could be passed beyond the judicial order, which had already been passed by a Hon ble Bench earlier to list the matter after the Puja holidays. 7. The ladies continued to make their mention. Thus, the Court desired to know their identity. Learned counsel at the Bar, Mr. Pandey Madan Mohan informed the Court that they are none other than the wives of teachers at the school, namely the Delhi Public School, and they are only repeating the mention, which had already been granted last week on a writ petition of Ranjit Kumar Roy. The ladies, in turn, confronted the counsel to say that what counsel had contended is not correct. They denied that the case had been filed by Ranjit Kumar Roy. The record clearly shows that a slip, which was presented on 14 September 2000, was signed by one Ranjit Kumar Roy. The slip is on record. The ladies, in turn, confronted the counsel to say that what counsel had contended is not correct. They denied that the case had been filed by Ranjit Kumar Roy. The record clearly shows that a slip, which was presented on 14 September 2000, was signed by one Ranjit Kumar Roy. The slip is on record. On the slip a mention was entertained on 15 September, 2000 with an order recorded by a Court, that the case be placed for admission after Puja holidays. The order is also on record. In the circumstances, the ladies were being difficult with the Court, to put it mildly, in insisting upon mentioning a case in which an order had already been passed and incorrectly insisting that the statement by a counsel at the Bar was incorrect. In fact, what the ladies were saying was against the record and not exactly correct. 8. The Court is not recording the details of what the ladies said because by this time the Court was under the impression that the mention slip having been consigned, it was understood by these ladies that as the case already carries orders for listing after the Puja vacations, the case would be listed as indicated. This should have been the end of the matter. As the ladies would not leave, they were advised by the counsel at the bar that the mention period was over and now they must leave the bar to the lawyers for their cases. They withdrew reluctantly. They went out of the Court. As soon as they had left the Court room there was a commotion outside. They shouted. A mans voice was also heard shouting. The commotion was loud and inappropriate within court premises. The Court heard "Agar Ye Judge Log Soon Nahi Sakte To Wahan Baithkar Kaya Karenge". The Court enquired from the Bench Secretary as to what exactly is happening outside. The Bench Secretary informed the Court that the person who shouted is none other than the one whose name is mentioned in the mention slip and he is the same person, who made a mention yesterday which was denied and the Court directed that the case be listed in turn. The Bench Secretary informed the Court that the person who shouted is none other than the one whose name is mentioned in the mention slip and he is the same person, who made a mention yesterday which was denied and the Court directed that the case be listed in turn. At this, members of the Bar present also indicated to the Court that the person who had shouted just outside the Chief Justices Court room is the same person who had made the mention yesterday. They stated that he is one Ranjit Kumar Roy and a regular litigant who files Public Interest Litigations in person and that he was conversing with the ladies and had also shouted to express whatever had been heard. 9. The Court indicated to the Bench Secretary that the Registrar of the High Court should be informed and if the fracas continued the Sergeant of Police should be called. The Bench Secretary sent the message to the Registrar. 10. The commotion continued and increased. Counsel and all those within the Court, the Bar, the staff and the public could hear the shouts of these ladies and a man. This ruckus did not cease. It continued and increased. Finding that the peace of the Court was disturbed, the sanctity of the Court proceedings eroded, and judicial proceedings interfered with, the Court directed the Registrar, who by now had arrived, to require the Sergeant to bring at the bar, whoever was shouting. After a few minutes, the person was brought to the Court, the ladies following. He was the person who had made a mention yesterday. That he had made a mention yesterday was acknowledged. This was Ranjit Kumar Roy at the bar of the Court. The Court gave him an opportunity to explain and put to him that he had sent the ladies to make a mention on a slip which carries his name and in a case filed by him. He denied that he done so. On this the Court reverted to the record; the mention slip which carries the name of Ranjit Kumar Roy and the record in C.W.J.C. No. 3153 of 2000 R ; Ranjit Kumar Roy V/s. The State of Bihar & Others. Thus, the Court told him that the mention was made in the very case in which Ranjit Kumar Roy is the petitioner in person. Thus, the Court told him that the mention was made in the very case in which Ranjit Kumar Roy is the petitioner in person. Further, in this very case Ranjit Kumar Roy had tendered a mention slip dated 14 September, 2000 and had made the mention next day before the Bench of the Hon ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and the Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K. Prasad. This mention was made on 15 September, 2000. It was on this mention of Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy and on his petition that the Court directed that the matter be placed for admission after the Puja holidays. 11. In the circumstances, it was not clear why the Court was being pressured to revise an order on a mention already granted by a judicial order that the matter will come up after Puja holidays. Beyond this week the Court will work only for five more days before the Puja recess, and after that the case would come up in any case. Even otherwise, the case could not come earlier unless the Court sets aside the order of the Bench dated 15 September, 2000, which this Court cannot do nor would it proper to consider such a suggestion. 12. The mischievous conduct of the contemnor (Ranjit Kumar Roy) is further evident from the fact that he sent the ladies and again brought the mention slip tendered for early hearing of Civil Review no. 58 of 2000 R. This civil review has been filed by the contemnor for reviewing /revising of the order dated 5.7.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 1880 of 2000 R. This writ petition was filed by the contemnor as a Public Interest Litigation against the following persons : (1) The State of Bihar, (2) Minister of State Power as well as Energy, (3) Secretary, B.S.E.B., Patna, Mr. Shivendra IAS, (4) Regional Development Commissioner & Chief Administrative Officer, (5) General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, B.S.E.B., South Chhotanagpur, (6) Local M.P., M.L.A. & M.L.C., (7) Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, (8) Editors of local media of Ranchi:- Prabhat Khabar, Hindustan, Ranchi Express, Aaj, The Hindustan, Jharkhand Jagran, Bananchal Prahari, Apni Ranchi and Ranchi Mail. 13 The said writ petition was dismissed on 5.7.2000 by a Division Bench of this Court. The order reads as under: "Heard. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, (8) Editors of local media of Ranchi:- Prabhat Khabar, Hindustan, Ranchi Express, Aaj, The Hindustan, Jharkhand Jagran, Bananchal Prahari, Apni Ranchi and Ranchi Mail. 13 The said writ petition was dismissed on 5.7.2000 by a Division Bench of this Court. The order reads as under: "Heard. This writ petition, by way of Public Interest Litigation, seems to be misconceived; in as much as several writ petitions have been filed against the Bihar State Electricity Board, details whereof have been given in the writ petition itself. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the successive writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed." 14. This is how the contemnor uses the Bar of the Court to file cases against persons of his own choice and waste the precious time of the Court. The conduct of the contemnor is further evident from the fact that on 8.8.2000 the said Civil Review Petition no. 58 of 2000 R was called out at intervals but nobody turned up and a weeks time was granted by the Registrar of the Court for removing the defects. After this on 19 September, 2000, only last week, the matter was placed before the Bench of Hon ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K. Prasad. The Hon ble Bench directed : "Let this case go out of the list for being placed for admission after 15 November 2000." In spite of a specific judicial order passed by a Bench of this Court, the contemnor put in a mention slip for a motion and when his prayer was refused he sent the ladies and again got the mention slip placed before this Court. 15. As so much had happened, now the Court got the record in which Ranjit Kumar Roy appeared yesterday. Ranjit Kumar Roy had made a mention yesterday in M.J.C. No. 616 of 1996 R and C.W.J.C. No. 3444 of 1995 R. The last order recorded in the case (M.J.C. No. 616 of 1996 R is on 26th July 2000. On that day this case was before Hon ble Mr. Justice Choudhary S.N. Mishra and Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K. Prasad. The recorded proceedings show that Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy was not present in Court when matter was taken up and that apart, the Court had granted the Government Pleader No. 1 Mr. On that day this case was before Hon ble Mr. Justice Choudhary S.N. Mishra and Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K. Prasad. The recorded proceedings show that Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy was not present in Court when matter was taken up and that apart, the Court had granted the Government Pleader No. 1 Mr. M.S. Anwar, time to seek instructions and file a counter affidavit on the point of whether an earlier order had been complied with. This contempt petition appears to have arisen upon a case which has been filed by Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy. This was C.W.J.C. No. 90 of 1998; Ranjit Kumar Roy V/s. State of Bihar & others. Ranjit Kumar Roy was complaining about the corruption in local bodies within the city of Ranchi. The matter had been filed as a Public Interest Litigation. 16. The next case mentioned in the mention slip of Ranjit Kumar Roy presented yesterday (21 September, 2000) is C.W.J.C. no. 3444 of 1995; Ranjit Kumar Roy V/s. Union of India & Others. In this case the opposite parties are the Prime Minister of India Speaker of the Loksabha, Ministry for Human Affairs, Leaders of the Opposition in the Loksabha, leaders of the Opposition in the Council of States, Deputy Chairman of the Council of States, Mr. Ranga Nath Mishra, Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Chief Minister of Bihar and leaders of the Opposition of the Bihar Vidhan Sabha. In this petition Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy in the very first paragraph states that "an appropriate writ and direction be given against the respondents, who with a malafide intention illegally, arbitrary to give unprecedented trouble to the needy innocent citizens of Bihar, atrocity on women, custodian deaths, illegal detention....," The court is not going further into the text of the petition as it is not relevant on the present matter. 17. The mention slip of Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy of 21 September, 2000 refers to the "business talks held with the Chief Justice in the Chamber on first visit three monts ago", and he mentioned in his talks that he had wanted to know why six Hon ble Judges instead of eight are posted at the Ranchi Bench. In his mention slip he claims that the people here are suffering as he has paid Rs. 500/- as court fee. In his mention slip he claims that the people here are suffering as he has paid Rs. 500/- as court fee. He was questioning the High Court, which even lawyers do not, why Ranchi Bench has six Judges only, and this also on a mention slip. 18. Thus, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy was asked as to why he had sent the ladies to make a mention before the court. He stated that he had not. The Court indicated to him that the mention was made in case which had been filed by him in person. He told the Court that he has not filed the case in which the mention was made. He was reminded that on record the mention slip refers to his name, the details of the case and that the case which had been filed and is pending had, in fact, been filed by him and the cause title carries his name. He told the Court that this is incorrect. In fact, he retorted to the Court that the Court had wrongly denied the mention in this case and the Court had made a mistake by placing the case after the Puja holidays and the Court should have given a date. When asked which Court, Quorum : Hon ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K. Prasad or this Bench of the Chief Justice and Hon ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal ? He replied cheekily that it did not matter. While submitting thus, he even made a reference to another Court. He said the Bench of Mr. Justice N. Pandey and another Judge have also passed such irregular, wrong orders, full of mistakes. Mr. Justice N. Pandey is the senior most Judge at the High Court, and recently, before returning to Patna, had been sitting at the Ranchi Bench for a month. 19. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy could not explain the situation that on the one hand he was attributing a mistake to an order of the Court dated 15 September, 2000 (Quorum; Hon ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K.Prasad) and, simultaneously, he was telling this Court that he had nothing to do with the ladies, who had made the mention in this case and he had nothing to do with the case which was filed by him. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K.Prasad) and, simultaneously, he was telling this Court that he had nothing to do with the ladies, who had made the mention in this case and he had nothing to do with the case which was filed by him. In fact, he impudently retorted to the Court that he has filed several cases in the Court and he does social work as a social activist and he claims the position of Jharkhand Ratna, mentioned in the mention slip of the ladies filed today. 20. This Court is not unaware of the provision of law in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, that an adequate opportunity to defend should be provided to the contemnor. The Court provided to the contemnor the opportunity to lead available evidence in his defence. That is why, this Court again appraised the contemnor of the charges, that is, while standing at the door of the Chief Justices Court room he shouted "Agar Ye Judge Log Soon Nahi Sakte To Wahan Baithkar Kay a Karenge" and asked him as to whether he wants time to put up his defence against the charges. In response, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy declined to put any defence other than what he kept reiterating that the charges against him can be proved only by videography and photography. He again retorted to the Court by saying that he has nothing to say save and except he denies the charges. 21. The Court told him that he had disturbed the peace and sanctity of judicial proceedings by shouting within the corridor of the High Court within ear shot of the Court and the Bar and this amounted to contempt in the face of the Court. He denied that he had done so. The Court intimated him that several counsel had identified him. The Court referred to the name of three counsel notwithstanding others. He stated before the Court that these counsel were not speaking the truth. The Court indicated to him that amongst any counsel present at the Bar in the Court room he may elect any one of them for the purposes of giving his alibi that he was not outside, in the corridor and was not shouting at the Court. He stated before the Court that these counsel were not speaking the truth. The Court indicated to him that amongst any counsel present at the Bar in the Court room he may elect any one of them for the purposes of giving his alibi that he was not outside, in the corridor and was not shouting at the Court. He retorted to the Court that it was not necessary and that only videography and photography would prove whether he was or was not present just outside the corridor adjacent to the court. In fact, he indicated to the Court that he was accosted, while he was going down stairs. At this the Court asked him why he came to the Court or does so frequently as the record shows that he does for the cases he has filed. He had no answer. The Court asked why he had come to the Court today. He replied : "I come to the Court to drink water". 22. The Registrar of the High Court present in Court indicated to the Court that Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy had been apprehended when moving from the corridor adjacent to the Chief Justices Court and was going down stairs. 23. The Registrar has also given a list of the cases, which have been filed by Ranjit Kumar Roy. He filed cases as Public Interest Litigation, but now the Court is beginning to feel that he has misutilised the bar of the Court for self-advertisement, to say the least. He appears in person. He does not conform to the order of the Court nor has courtesy nor humility to realise that Public Interest Litigations are not petitions of right but only an indulgence granted by the High Court in its prerogative writ jurisdiction. 24. The Registrar of the High Court brought to the notice of this Court the details of the cases which have been filed by the said contemnor Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy. 24. The Registrar of the High Court brought to the notice of this Court the details of the cases which have been filed by the said contemnor Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy. The details are as below :- (1) CWJC No. 1801 of 1986R 22.95 (sic) (2) " 1892 of 86R 29.11.95 (3) " 1893 of 86R 9.5.88 (4)" 701 87R 20.3.89 Disposed of (5) " 705 87R 9.5.88 (6) " 1589 87R 26.11.87 Dismissed (7) " 1602 Of 87R 10.5.88 (8) " 1675 of 87R 14.5.88 (9) " 1502 of 91R 2.7.91 Disposed of (10) " 172 of 91R 23.1.91 Dismissed (11) " 3124 of 93R 8.2.95 Dismissed (12) " 409 of 94R 8.2.95 (13) " 1582 of 95R 8.2.95 (14) " 3444 of 95R Pending (15) 303 of 96R 26.2.96 (16) " 304 of 96R 26.2.96 (17) " 305 of 96R 30.1.96 (18) " 634 of 96R 14.2.96 (19) " 2156 of 96R 26.7.96 (20) " 53 of 97R 8.1.97 Dismissed as withdrawn (21) " 1880 of 2000R (22) " 315 of 2000R (23) M.J.C.No. 616 of 96R Running on the list for hearing. (24) " 387 of 96R Disposed of on 20.8.96 (25) " 149 Of 96R D.D. 18.4.96 Restoration of C.W.J.CNo. 364 of 96R (26) M.J.C.No. 40 of 96R D.D. on 23.5.96 (27) " 459 of 95R D.D. on 29.11.95 (28) " 335 of 97R D.D. on 15.5.97 (29) " 40 of 95R (30) Civil Review 58 of 2000R (31) C.W.J.C. No. 2204 of 87R 11.1.88 Withdrawn (32) " 2205 of 87R 4.1.88 Dismissed (33) " 1841 of 91R 8.10.91 Withdrawn (34) " 147 of 87R to 150/87R Dismissed (35)" 2099 of 91R 8.2.96 Disposed of (36)" 1485 of 87R 21.9.87 Dismissed (37) " 1190 of 88R 20.2.95 Disposed of (38) "1122 of 88R 15.12.88 D.D. (39) " 1205 of 88R 29.9.88 Disposed of (40) " 844 of 88R 17.7.88 -do- (41) " 1637 Of 88R 25.6.00 -do- (42) " 90 of 88R 15.1.93 Dismissed as withdrawn (43)" 1972 Of 88R 4.10.88 Withdrawn (44)" 1973 of 88R 11.11.88 Rejected (45) " 1974 of 88 4.1.89R Disposed (46) " 1379 of 88 9.8.89R Withdrawn 25. It is, therefore, evident that the contemnor Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy has been filing cases taking the cause of ther persons in the garb of Public Interest Litigation since 1986. It is, therefore, evident that the contemnor Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy has been filing cases taking the cause of ther persons in the garb of Public Interest Litigation since 1986. The Registrar of the High Court further informed that even prior to 1986 the contemnor Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy has filed several cases in the name of Public Interest Litigation. It is, therefore, clear that Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy has virtually been practicing as an Advocate, advocating the cases of other persons without have a licence to practise. A list of more than 46 cases, not having reckoned those consigned to the record, as the Registrar informs, in a modest vakalat of any advocate or vakil. 26. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy continued a posture of arrogance, defiance, and to claim a vested right in a public justice system to file, and have his cases heard on the dates he wants, which he would like to dictate to the Court, regardless of the process of the Court to consider a matter worthy of notice of motion or to have the motion served, if issued, to those to whom it is meant to be delivered. Civility impliedly follows the rule of law. Ruffians rough up the process of law. A court cannot subscribe to this. 27. The Registrar reports that Mr.Ranjit Kumar Roy is a regular visitor in the corridors of the High Court, even making unauthorised entry into the offices of the Registry. He files and chases cases on behalf of others. He is not a lawyer, but signs memoranda of appearances on their behalf. Lawyers have a licence to practice, training and registration in their profession. Their clerks who look after the clerical aspects of cases, also have licences to act as clerks. The lawyers profession comes with an obligation to uphold certain norms. Clerks also are expected to behave with propriety. 28. Lawyers do not meet judges for "business talks". Clerks of lawyers do not scurry into Registrars offices for business talks. They do not fight with judges or officers of the Court. When asked why he is in Court (having already told the Court that he is "not in the Court"), a lawyer doesnt tell the Judge that "I came to Court to drink water." Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy has done these things. Obviously he doesnt feel obliged to follow any norms of behaviour. 29. Mr. When asked why he is in Court (having already told the Court that he is "not in the Court"), a lawyer doesnt tell the Judge that "I came to Court to drink water." Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy has done these things. Obviously he doesnt feel obliged to follow any norms of behaviour. 29. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy would apparently like to be well known for advocating the cause of the people in public interest matters, someone like Mr. M.C.Mehta, perhaps. But Mr. Mehta fights for causes, without fighting with judges. He does not abuse Judges in the corridors of the Supreme Court. He does not roam in the offices of the Supreme Court Registry, making a nuisance of himself. And Mr. Mehta does not claim to have "business talks" with the Chief Justice or his companion judges. Mr. M.C. Mehta assists the Courts in deciding matters for the public good. 30. Public Interest Litigation is permitted at the discretion of the Courts, in peace and without belligerence. One does not shout in a temple, mosque or church nor does one shout in a Court, which is a temple of justice. Public justice must be done in peace, with rational discussion and understanding. Belligerence is the tool of militants. They are answerable to no one. The Courts are answerable to the people, they have an obligation to the Constitution, and to make the constitutional system work for the people. 31. A lawyer pleads on behalf of his client. He has a licence to plead. That is both his sanction and his obligation to put forward his clients case with respect for the system that may grant relief. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy has made the High Court a forum for "business talks". He has put himself in the position of a professional moharir. For that he will need a licence to practise. If it be a case where he is personally aggrieved and has a vested right, a genuine lis, the Court may permit him to plead his case. But he will have to come to the Court in peace and modesty, to argue his matter as best he can. He cant just come to "drink water in Court", as he has said or force the judges to waste their time "drinking water" with him. 32. The Court informed Mr. But he will have to come to the Court in peace and modesty, to argue his matter as best he can. He cant just come to "drink water in Court", as he has said or force the judges to waste their time "drinking water" with him. 32. The Court informed Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy that as his attitude is unrelenting, there is a possibility, as these are summary proceedings in the face of the Court, he may be convicted. It was explained to him that he has interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings today by obstructing the administration of justice and by his acts of omission and commission tended to lower the authority of the Court and by intimidating the Court to give him priority over other cases and preponing its order when indulgence had already been granted that cases be listed after Puja holidays. 33. The only answer which Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy gave to the Court was that all those judges, who passed an order for listing the case after the Puja holidays, are incorrect. Their orders are wrong and those orders are full of mistakes. This clearly shows that the aforesaid Ranjit Kumar Roy has not even an iota of remorse. Though an opportunity had been granted, he only repeated his assertions against other Benches of the High Court also. 34. The Court afforded him an opportunity to make his defence and asked whether he would like the assistance of a lawyer. The contemnor declined to seize the opportunity, in fact he stated that he does not need a lawyer as he files cases himself. 35. Thus, this court being satisfied that Ranjit Kumar Roy is guilty of contempt committed in its presence and within hearing of the Court and the Bar, and the contemnor Ranjit Kumar Roy neither made nor tendered any apology nor put forward an explanation. Otherwise, the record of the High Court bears out that he is in the habit of filing frivolous litigations and misutilises the Bar of the Court as a self styled attorney without licence or sanction. 36. Accordingly, this Court convicts and sentences Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy with a simple imprisonment of seven days. However, the conviction and sentence is deferred for a fortnight and in the meantime, it is directed that Mr.Ranjit Kumar Roy be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 36. Accordingly, this Court convicts and sentences Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy with a simple imprisonment of seven days. However, the conviction and sentence is deferred for a fortnight and in the meantime, it is directed that Mr.Ranjit Kumar Roy be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount. 37. Of the orders dictated in open Court, let the operative portion in the last four paragraphs be made available forthwith today to Mr. Ranjit Kumar Roy.