Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 115 (MP)

Lok Ayukta of M. P. v. Umashankar Gupta

2001-02-05

C.K.PRASAD, USHA SHUKLA

body2001
ORDER Prasad, J. -- 1. Bereft of unnecessary details, facts necessary for the decision of this contempt petition are that the Bhopal Municipal Corporation took decision on 27th April, 1999 to set-up Power Generation Project based on urban waste to sub-serve twin purpose of eliminating the garbage and urban waste and to improve the environmental condition of the city. With this object in mind the Municipal Corporation invited tenders from the interested parties, firms and companies for the work of energy generation from solid waste. In response thereto, tenders were received, out of which one of the tenders was offered by M/s. Balaji Traders, which is consortium of several constituents; one of them being Mr. M.Z. Siddiqui, son of Lok Ayukta of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Hon 'ble Mr. Justice Faizanuddin. Sri Siddiqui is an Engineer and had 5% interest in the business of M/s. Balaji Traders for the service he would be rendering as an Engineer to it. According to the Municipal Corporation, there were only two tenders for the work, for which tender was invited, one was by M/s. Balaji Traders and another by M/s. Cicon Environmental Technologies Limited. Lateron, M/s. Cicon Environmental Technologies Ltd., withdrew its tender and as such, there was only one tender of M/s. Balaji Traders left for consideration. It seems that the Municipal Corporation entered into correspondence with the State Government soliciting information on the technical aspect of the tender. State Govt. replied to the same and advised the Corporation that it should take advice of the Energy Development Corporation on technical issues. State Govt. further wrote to the Municipal Corporation on 11.3.99 that it had invited tenders and hence final decision is to be taken by it. The State Govt. in exercise of its power under section 418 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, further directed the Municipal Corporation to take final decision within 10 days and in form the Government, decision taken by it. The Municipal Corporation did not take final decision as directed by the State Govt. and by letter dated 2.7.1999 a Sub-Committee was constituted to examine the matter. The Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 28.7.1999, resolved to rescind the project of energy generation from solid waste. The Municipal Corporation did not take final decision as directed by the State Govt. and by letter dated 2.7.1999 a Sub-Committee was constituted to examine the matter. The Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 28.7.1999, resolved to rescind the project of energy generation from solid waste. The resolution of the Sub-Committee was placed for consideration before the Mayor-in-Council in its meting held on 14.8.1999 and it agreed with the proposal of the Sub-Committee for rescinding of the project. 2. As stated earlier, by letter dated 11.3 .1999 the State Government gave direction in exercise of power under section 418-A of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the Corporation to take final decision in regard to grant of tender within 10 days. In the opinion of the State Govt., Municipal Corporation did not carry out the directive and hence in exercise of power under section 419(1)(a) of the Act, authorised the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to take final decision in the matter. On receipt of the aforesaid directive of the State Govt., the Municipal Corporation by its letter dated 28.9.1999 requested the State Govt. to take decision at its own level. However, by letter dated 13.10.1999 the State Govt. wrote to the Municipal Commissioner to take final decision in the matter in consultation with the Managing Director of the Energy Development Corporation. Armed with the authority of the State Govt., the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation issued letter of intent dated 20.10.1999 to M/s. Balaji Traders for energy generation from municipal solid waste. 3. After the grant of letter of intent to M/s. Balaji Traders, by letter dated 20th October, 1999, contemnor Umashankar Gupta called a press conference at Bhopal on 22.10.1999 and issued a press note justifying the stand of the Corporation and giving the sequence of events, which led to issuance of order by the State Govt., authorising the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to take final decision in the matter of grant of work of energy generation and the reason and objective of the same. In the present Contempt Petition, we are not concerned with any other allegation except the following which concerns the Lok Ayukta. In the present Contempt Petition, we are not concerned with any other allegation except the following which concerns the Lok Ayukta. In the press statement, the contemnor has stated as follows :- ^^esjk Li”V ekuk gS fd e-ç- ds eq[;ea=h Jh fnfXot; flag th us vius vkSj vius lkfFk;ksa ds Hkz”Vkpkjksa ij inkZ Mkyus ds fy;s ek- yksdk;qDr egksn; dks çHkkfor djus ds fy;s muds iq= Jh ,e-tsM- flíhdh dks vf/kfu;e ,oa lafo/kku dh /kfTt;ka mM+krs gq, Lok;Ùk laLFkkvkas dh Lora=rk dk guu dj çtkra= dk xyk ?kksaVk gS rFkk pquh gqbZ tu&çfrfuf/k lHkk ds fu.kZ; ds foijhr yksdk;qDr esa vusd çdj.kksa esa fyIr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ncko nsdj muls ;g vuSfrd ÑR; djk;k gSA** It means that the contemnor believes that the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Sri Digvijay Singhji; in order to screen himself and his corrupt friends and to influence the Hon'b1e Lok Ayukta, has got the contract granted to his son Sri M.Z. Siddiqui by exerting pressure on the officials involved in investigation by Lok Ayukta, throttling the Act and the Constitution and independence of local bodies and democracy. The statement given by the contemnor has been widely and prominently published in various newspapers. The headlines given in the various newspapers read as follows :-- S. No. Headlines Name of newspaper Date on which published 1- tkap çHkkfor djus ^^lk/; çdk’k** 22 vDVwcj 1999 yksdk;qDr ds iq= dks Bsdk fnyk;k x;k% xqIrk 2- yksdk;qDr ds csVs ^^nSfud HkkLdj** 23 vDVwcj 1999 dks Bsdk fn, tkus ij coky 3- yksdk;qDr dks ^^nSfud tkxj.k** 23 vDVwcj 1999 çHkkfor djus ds fy, muds csVs dks ljdkj us Bsdk fn;k&egkikSj 4- yksdk;qDr dks ^^uo Hkkjr** 23 vDVwcj 1999 çHkkfor djus ds fy, fu.kZ; fy;k 5. CM trying to influence "Chronicle" Bhopal Oct. 23, 1999 Lok Ayukta: Mayor Contract to his son 6. Mayor lays blame on "National Mail" Oct. 23, 1999 CM for favouritism 7. CM trying to influence "The Sunday New Delhi, Oct. 24, 1999 Lok Ayukta : Times of India" Bhopal Mayur 4. Having come to know about the offending statement, the Hon'ble Lok Ayukta, made a reference under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 requesting this Court to initiate suo-molu proceeding to suitably punish the contemnor Uma Shankar Gupta the then Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal under the appropriate provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Having come to know about the offending statement, the Hon'ble Lok Ayukta, made a reference under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 requesting this Court to initiate suo-molu proceeding to suitably punish the contemnor Uma Shankar Gupta the then Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal under the appropriate provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On receipt thereof, this Court issued notice to the contemnor. In response to the notice, contemnor has filed his show-cause and he admits that has had issued the press-note containing the aforesaid passage, hereinafter referred to as tile offending statement, which has been published in the newspaper but according to him same does not contain any defamatory or scandalous statement against the Hon 'ble Lok Ayukta. Contemnor's stand is that he has made allegation against the Chief Minister of influencing the high officials of the' Government involved in the investigation by Lok Ayukta for accepting tile single tender of M/s. Balaji Traders. He has stated in his show cause that he has high regards for Hon 'ble Mr. Justice Faizanuddin and he can never think of making any statement against him. 5. Mr. V.S. Shroti appears on behalf of the Lok Ayukta whereas, contemnor Uma Shankar Gupta is represented by Sri R.N. singh. It is relevant here to state that in the show-cause, various pleas have been raised by the contemnor with regard to the maintainability of the contempt petition and various other pleas but in fairness to Sri Singh, we must state that he has not raised all those pleas and his only contention is that the offending statement does not constitute contempt. Mr. Singh contends that the offending statement does attribute exertion of pressure on the officials who are involved in investigation by the Lok Ayukta by the Chief Minister and the same, in no way attributes any motive to the Lok Ayukta. Mr. V.S. Shroti: however, submits that the offending statement gives an impression that the Lok Ayukta is susceptible to influence and this deflects the course of justice and as such the contemnor is guilty of contempt. 6. We have gone through the press statement given by the contemnor and which has been published in various newspapers closely and in the news items, we do not find anything which directly attributes any motive to the Lok Ayukta. 6. We have gone through the press statement given by the contemnor and which has been published in various newspapers closely and in the news items, we do not find anything which directly attributes any motive to the Lok Ayukta. It goes to convey that pressure was exerted by the Chief Minister on the officers who were involved• in investigation by Lok Ayukta; to get the immoral work done but the offending statement certainly gives an impression that the contract has been granted to the son of Lok Ayukta in order to influence him and the offending statement does create an impression that Lok Ayukta can be influenced by such tricks. We are further of the opinion that when a citizen goes through such news item, it feels that Lok Ayukta can also be influenced. Nobody except who had held the office of the Chief Justice of the High Court or Judge of the Supreme Court can be appointed as a Lok Ayukta. Question therefore is as to what impression an individual will have, when it is sought to be conveyed that the Lok Ayukta can also be influenced. Whether same will affect the faith of the common man in Lok Ayukta and. If so, will that amount to lowering the dignity of the Lok Ayukta In the estimation of public in general, obstructing the course of justice. We appreciate that independence of thought and expression are rights dear to every citizen including the contemnor and we had taken oath to uphold that, but while expressing ones view, one is required to consider as to what impact it. shall have on public in general. The offending statement in our opinion, clearly goes to convey to its readers that even the Lok Ayukta can be influenced. As stated earlier, nobody can hold office of Lok Ayukta except those who had held the high office of the Chief Justice of the High Court or that of a Judge of the Supreme Court. This impression in our opinion tends to affect the credibility of the institution of Lok Ayukta and people's faith in it. In our opinion, the question is not whether offending statement affected the credibility of the Lok Ayukta or lowered the dignity of the Lok Ayukta, but whether it tends to do the same. This impression in our opinion tends to affect the credibility of the institution of Lok Ayukta and people's faith in it. In our opinion, the question is not whether offending statement affected the credibility of the Lok Ayukta or lowered the dignity of the Lok Ayukta, but whether it tends to do the same. In our opinion, the offending statement is couched in such a way that it does tend to create an impression that the Lok Ayukta can be influenced, which shall definitely erode the confidence of the people in the institution of Lok Ayukta and will affect its credibility and lower down its dignity in the estimation of public in general. We are further of the opinion that the contemnor had unnecessarily dragged the name of the Lok Ayukta, while attacking his political rival. Accordingly, we hold the contemnor guilty for contempt. 7. Now we proceed to consider as to what punishment would meet the ends of justice. Contemnor, although has profusely stated in his show-cause, that he has high regards for the Lok Ayukta and he has not made any insinuation against the Lok Ayukta, but has not tendered any apology. Had he done so, we might have considered to discharge the rule by accepting the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that ends of justice shall be met by admonishing the contemnor and cautianing him to be careful in future. We do it accordingly. 8. By way of abundant caution, we must observe that this decision shall have no bearing on the decision taken by Municipal Commissioner; as we have not gone into its validity in the present petition. 9. Contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.