Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 13 (RAJ)

Devkinandan v. State of Rajasthan

2000-01-05

MOHD.YAMIN

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Devkinandan, Private Assistant Secretary of the District Collector, Churu, preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. against the action taken by respondent No. 2 Shri Sohan Lal Bothra, Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and has prayed that the proceedings initiated by issue of notice to him be quashed and the notice itself be quashed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Shri Sohan Lal Bothra. 3. Shri Sohan Lal Bothra, an R.A.S. Officer, was Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. He went to hold camp court at Churu and stayed in Room No. 1 in, Ciicuit House. On 14.7.1995 the Collector Churu, under whom the petitioner was working, asked him to inform the Manager of the Circuit House to get the VIP Room and Room No. 1 cleaned. The petitioner, therefore, in compliance of direction gave a telephonic call to the office of the Circuit House. The call was attended by one Mahendra Kumar to whom the message was conveyed. Shri Darshan Singh was the Manager of the Circuit House at the relevant time. When he came, he telephoned to the petitioner and then Darshan Singh was informed about the direction given by the Collector, Churu. Darshan Singh informed that respondent No. 2 Shri Sohan Lal Bothra was staying in Room No. 1 of the Circuit House. Thereupon the petitioner replied that he would inform the Collector. On 15.7.1995 when the petitioner was working in his office, the respondent No. 2 came himself and delivered a notice to him. The notice, interalia, states that the petitioner asked Darshan Singh whether Sohan Lal Bothra was entitled to stay in Room No. 1 of the Circuit House and thereby committed the contempt of court. The notice also mentions to show cause why action should not be taken under Contempt of Court Act/under Section 228 of IPC. The petitioner has challenged this notice as well as the proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 2. 4. The respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the petition as well as affidavit in which he has stated all irrelevant material regarding his bad relations with the Collector involving the allotment of land for construction of houses for Judicial Officers. The petitioner has challenged this notice as well as the proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 2. 4. The respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the petition as well as affidavit in which he has stated all irrelevant material regarding his bad relations with the Collector involving the allotment of land for construction of houses for Judicial Officers. However, so far as notice is concerned, he denied the fact alleged in para No. 1 of the petition to the effect that the petitioner was carrying out the instructions given to him by Collector to ask the Managar of the Circuit House to get the VIP Room and Room No. 1 cleaned. These facts have been denied for want of knowledge by the respondent No. 2. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No. 2 took action without verifying whether the Collector had asked *he petitioner to convey to the Manager that Room No. 1 and VIP Room should be get cleaned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no case for contempt of Court or under Section 228 IPC was made out against the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner could have appeared and filed reply to the notice and the proceedings would have finished in the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority itself. 6. I have also gone through the proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 2 on 15.7.1995 in file No. 37/95 which mentions that on 14.7.1995 it was Darshan Singh who informed Shri Bothra that Deviknandan had asked whether Shri Bothra was entitled to stay in Room No. 1. It has been stated in the ordersheet that Shri Bothra was entitled to stay in Room No. 1 and that by asking, Shri Devkinandan had committed contempt of Court. It may be stated that it is ridiculous to say that by asking such a question from Darshan Singh the petitioner has committed Contempt of Court. 7. Then the ordersheet mentions that on 15.7.1995 the respondent No. 2 himself went to Devkinandan to get the notice served and even at that time he was not paid any respect and gave the receipt of the notice after much heckling. The notice was replied on 2.7.1995 in which the petitioner submitted that he has not committed any contempt. 7. Then the ordersheet mentions that on 15.7.1995 the respondent No. 2 himself went to Devkinandan to get the notice served and even at that time he was not paid any respect and gave the receipt of the notice after much heckling. The notice was replied on 2.7.1995 in which the petitioner submitted that he has not committed any contempt. I have seen the reply of the notice submitted by the petitioner which mentions that he had carried out the order of the Collector by asking the officials of the Circuit House to get Room No. 1 and VIP Room cleaned. According to it Darshan Singh informed that the respondent No. 2 was staying in Room No. 1. According to the reply the verbal talk between the Manager and the petitioner did not amount to contempt. 8. During the arguments learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 citing AIR 1991 SC page 2176, Delhi Judicial Service Association, his Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and Others , submitted that a petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. would not be maintainable against a notice issued for contempt by a court of record. I have gone through this citation. It does not support the argument of the learned counsel as admittedly the court of Revenue Appellate Authority is not a court of record. 9. The substantial question in the case is whether the talk between the petitioner and Darshan Singh would amount to contempt? I am of a firm opinion that it does not. No contempt is made out by simply conveying the message of the Collector to the Officials of the Circuit House to get the Room No. 1 and VIP Room cleaned. It appears that the respondent No. 2 was not having good relations with the then Collector Chum. He wanted to settle scores with Collector. But he made the petitioner a scapegoat. 10. In view of above discussion the petition should be accepted' and the proceedings as well as notice deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the respondent No. 2 be saddled with exemplary cost he has caused unnecessary mental tension to the petitioner. I am of the view that it is not a fit case in which cost may be awarded. 11. Consequently, the petition is hereby allowed. The notice as well as proceedings initiated against the petitioner are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******