The office placed this Misc. Application dated 6-9-2001 filed by the convicted contemner supported by his affidavit in terms of order dated 31-8-2001 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2001 firstly before the Honble C. J. s Bench on 15-9-2001. Vide Order dated 15-9-2001 Honble C. J. s Bench directed placing of this application before our Bench on 24-9-2001. Then the office placed it for our consideration for the first time at 3. 00 p. m. yesterday (may be on account of the fact that one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.), was on Circuit Holding Court at the Lucknow Bench from Monday dated 17th September, 2001 to 22nd September, 2001, praying to accept the apology tendered by him on the ground that it will be expedient in the interest of justice for the reasons and facts given in the accompanying affidavit. 2. The affidavit (excluding the earlier part) reads as follows: " (1) The the deponent is Respondent/applicant in the above noted contempt and as such he is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to below. (2) That the deponent is sole petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40783 of 1999 and had moved a transfer application in the case transferring the writ petition some other bench, as matter was tied up with bench presided by Honble B. K. Roy, J. (3) That Honble B. K. Roy, J. was pleased to release the case on 8-11-2000. However, issued a notice of contempt to the deponent on the contents of the transfer application aforesaid. (4) That the deponent was conducting his case in person and had also drafted the writ petition and had been from time to time drafting other applications/affidavits to be filed in the Honble Court, although he does not have any law degree or experience of practising as a lawyer and was arguing in the present writ petition against the order of the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, punishing the petitioner by permanently stopping his increments against the alleged non-evaluation of answer scripts, a case in which the petitioner was falsely implicated and Respondents filed false affidavits in the Court. (5) That the petitioner is a teacher and has always been conscious of the dignity and Majesty of the Honble Court and had never any intentions to commit contempt or disregard in any manner the dignity and decorum of the Honble Court, and with this thing in his mind he had made a confidential representation dates September 9, 2000 to the Honble Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court, New Delhi, which was personally handed over by him in the office of the Honble Chief Justice of India on September 11, 2000. A copy of the said representation is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. (6) That the aforesaid contempt case came for hearing on 10-8-2001 before the bench consisting of Honble B. K. Roy and Honble S. K. Jain, JJ. when the Honble Bench granted time to file show cause/or apology to the deponent by 1. 30 p. m. in Chambers. (7) That the deponent could not file the show cause/or apology to the Honble Court in Chamber on 10- 8-2001 as he was already ill and was suffering from high fever and therefore, requested his Counsel to request the Honble Court to grant time to file the aforesaid show cause/or apology, and seek adjournment due to this reason. (8) That the Counsel of the dependent sought adjournment from Honble Court on the aforesaid reasons but the adjournment was not granted by the Honble Court, and convicted the depondent for 15 days simple imprisonment. (9) That thereafter, the deponent filed a Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2001 before the Honble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 10-8-2001 passed by this Honble Court in Criminal Contempt No. 47 of 2000. And the following interim order dated 21-8-2001 was passed by Honble Supreme Court: "upon being mentioned by the Counsel the Court made the following. ORDEr List on the scheduled date. Pending further orders, the contempt proceedings shall remain stayed. S/d-Illegible (N. Annapurna) Court Master, S/d-Illegible (Shelly Sengupta) Court Master" 21. 8. 2001 A Photo copy of the aforesaid order dated 21-8-2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. (10) That on 31-8-2001, the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order: "upon hearing Counsel the Court made the following. S/d-Illegible (N. Annapurna) Court Master, S/d-Illegible (Shelly Sengupta) Court Master" 21. 8. 2001 A Photo copy of the aforesaid order dated 21-8-2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. (10) That on 31-8-2001, the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order: "upon hearing Counsel the Court made the following. ORDEr Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant will file an apology before the High Court and the High Court may be requested to hear the appellant on that. The matter is adjourned by three weeks in order to enable the appellant to approach the High Court. If an apology is filed within a week, the High Court should deal with the same. List after three weeks. Interim orders to continue till further orders. Sd/- Illegible (S. L. GOYAL) COURT MASTER" A Photostat copy of the said order dated 31-8-2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. (11) That the deponent has had never intended nor wished to commit any contempt of Court or to show any disregard during the entire proceedings of the Court in the writ petition as well as the contempt case, aforesaid and never imagined to violate the dignity and decorum of the Honble Court. If this Court feels that the deponent has committed contempt of the Honble Court, the deponent tenders his unqualified apologies. I, the deponent, abovenamed do hereby solemnly affirm and swear and verify that the contents of paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, (partly), 5 (partly), 6, 7, 8, 11 of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge; and those of contents of paragraph Nos. 4 (partly), 5 (partly), 9 and 10 of this affidavit are based on perusal of records; which all I believe to be true and that no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed in it. So help me God. (A. C. Agrawal)" 3. Since we are required to deal with the apology allegedly tendered in terms of the directions made by the Honble Supreme Court we refresh ourselves with the law declared by Honble Supreme Court as to when it should be accepted. 3. 1. In Mulkh Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197 at 1198 (Paragraph 9) a 4 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "apology is an act of contrition. 3. 1. In Mulkh Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197 at 1198 (Paragraph 9) a 4 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemner finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. . . . . . . " 3. 2. In this very judgment, when a litigant sent an application before Honble The Chief Justice of India making allegation against a Judge in a pending case, it was observed in Paragraph 10 (at Page 1198) as follows: "the submission of the appellant that the application was a representation is unmeritorious. It will be most improper for litigants to send applications to the Chief Justice of India concerning pending matters and making allegations against Judges. The dismissal of the appellants application by the High Court was characterised by the appellant in offensive language casting aspersions on the Judges and lowering the dignity and esteem of the judiciary. " 3. 3. In L. D. Jaikwal v. State of U. P. , AIR 1984 SC 1374 , when before the High Court the appellant sought to justify his conduct without feeling any remorse or expressing any sorrow and it was only when the contemner approached the Honble Supreme Court expressed his sorrow before the Honble Supreme Court saying that he had lost his mental balance, it was observed as follows: "we are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the `slap-say sorry-and forget school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying `sorry does not make the slapper poorer. Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction. xx (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . He appeared before the learned Judge and tendered a written apology wherein he stated that he was doing so "as directed by the Honble Supreme Court. " This circumstance in a way shows that it was a `paper apology and the expression of sorrow came from his pen, not from his heart. . . . . . . . . He appeared before the learned Judge and tendered a written apology wherein he stated that he was doing so "as directed by the Honble Supreme Court. " This circumstance in a way shows that it was a `paper apology and the expression of sorrow came from his pen, not from his heart. For, it is one thing to "say" sorry it is another to "feel" sorry. . . . . . . . . " xxx (6) We do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest imputations against him has to do, is to go ahead and scandalize him, and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs him practically nothing. If such a apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a licence to scandalize Courts and commit contempt of Court with impunity. " 3. 4. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction, (1995) 3 SCC 507 at 523, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "an apology is not a weapon of defence forged to purge the guilt of the offences nor is it intended to operate as a panacea. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness, the manly consciousness of a wrong done, of an injury inflicted, and the earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the wrongdoers power. " The apology in this case came forth after sensing that `the adventures have turned out to be misadventures, releasing that the contemners have ended up in a cul- de-sac. " 3. 5. In Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 130, it was observed as follows: "the apology of the respondent was only conditional and not an unconditional one. Public interest, therefore, demands that the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented by mere statement of conditional apology or as a fact even unconditional apology. The unconditional apology should be contrite for the acts committed by him. Therefore, the conditional apology would not be a premium to avoid conviction. Public interest, therefore, demands that the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented by mere statement of conditional apology or as a fact even unconditional apology. The unconditional apology should be contrite for the acts committed by him. Therefore, the conditional apology would not be a premium to avoid conviction. Though it is open to the Court in an appropriate case to accept an unconditional apology based on factual scenario but accepting the apology and dropping the proceeding of contumacious acts deliberately done to overreach the due process of the law without compunction would amount to a premium to fabricate the Court order with impunity. Therefore, the conditional apology of the respondent has to be rejected. It is a grave and contumacious act and conduct on the part of the respondent which cannot be lightly brushed aside. " 3. 6. In P. Kasilingam v. P. S. G. & Sons Charities, Poolamedu, Coimbatore, 1990 Supreme Court Case (Cri) 626 it was held that offering of an unconditional apology has its due reflection in the quantum of punishment and it cannot completely absolve contempt. 4. In relation to permissibility of transfer of a contempt proceeding initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution, in Sukhdeo Singh Sodhi v. Honble C. J. S. Teja Singh, AIR 1954 SC 186 , a three Judges Division Bench of the Honble Supreme Court had laid down that contempt "proceeding cannot be transferred from one Judge to another". This declaration of law made 47 years ago still holds the field inasmuch as it has not been overruled or modified by any larger Bench or explained away by any three Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court. Our Rules, however, permits vesting powers in Honble the Chief Justice to refer a question of law arising even in a pending case to a larger Bench but the law as to when a case is required to be referred to a larger Bench stands well settled through a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. 5. In Jaswant Singh v. Virendra Singh, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 384, when a transfer petition was filed before the Honble Supreme Court against a learned Judge of the High Court it was observed that "transfer petition like the application casts aspersions on the learned Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions and has the tendency to scandalise the Court. In Jaswant Singh v. Virendra Singh, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 384, when a transfer petition was filed before the Honble Supreme Court against a learned Judge of the High Court it was observed that "transfer petition like the application casts aspersions on the learned Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions and has the tendency to scandalise the Court. It was an attempt to browbeat the learned Judge of the High Court and cause interference in the conduct of a fair trial. Not only are the aspersions derogatory, scandalous and uncalled for but they also tend to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect. . . . . . . . . . . bring the Court in disrepute. " 6. In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795 , the Honble Supreme Court had laid down that filing of false affidavit or making false statement on oath amounts to criminal contempt of Court. 7. We also remind ourselves what Francis Bacon, who became Lord Keeper and finally Lord Chancellor of England, in his Essay "of JUDICATURE", had stated about the Judges. "above all things, integrity in their position and proper virtue". . . . . . . . . Let not Judges also be so ignorant of their own right as to think there is not left them, as a principal part of their office, a wise use and application of laws. " (Bacons Essays, Published by T. Nelson & Sons Ltd.), besides of our oath taken when we had became High Court Judges that we will perform our duties without any fear or favour, affection or ill will. 8. Even though both of us had released the writ petition filed by the contemner from our Board reminding ourselves what was stated by the Honble Supreme Court in Sukhdeo Singh, (supra), (which is crystal clear from Paragraph 4 of our order dated 8-11-2000), yet a statement has been made in Paragraph 3 that one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) had released the case. 9. Even though the contemner gave an impression before the Honble Supreme Court that he will file apology, surprisingly Paragraph 5 of the affidavit discloses for the first time of his making confidential representation dated 9-9-2000 before Honble The Chief Justice of India. 9. Even though the contemner gave an impression before the Honble Supreme Court that he will file apology, surprisingly Paragraph 5 of the affidavit discloses for the first time of his making confidential representation dated 9-9-2000 before Honble The Chief Justice of India. A perusal of his complaint shows that only one of us had infuriated on him for the first time on 26-10-1999 when his writ petition was placed for consideration and he was humiliated even subsequently by using the expressions allegedly made therein. It is not understandable to us as to why the contemner brought on the records of this Court for the first time his confidential representation aforementioned of which he never disclosed earlier in his two Transfer Petitions and why he chose to remain silent till 9-9-2000 during which several orders were passed by us in his favour. 10. It is thus necessary to refresh what happened firstly in Court on 26-10-1999. Various order and noting of the office in the order sheet right from 26-10-1999 to 9-9-2000 read as follows: "26-10-1999. Re: Civil Amendment Application No. . . . . . . . . of 1999 filed on 26-10-1999 In this application, which has been filed in person by the petitioner, a prayer has been made to amend the prayer portion of the writ petition. The petitioner wants to incorporate prayer Nos. (i) and (ii) in place of the existing ones in the writ petition, in the interest of justice. Very fairly, these two prayers are not opposed. Accordingly, we allow this Amendment Application in part to the extent as indicated above only, provided they are incorporated within one week from today, failing which this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. The petitioner comes up with a prayer for adjournment on the ground that he has received a copy of the counter-affidavit which has also been filed today only. Sri Gaur also comes up with a prayer for adjournment on the ground that preparation of the counter- affidavit could not be completed for want of certain documents. Sri Upadhyaya also comes up with a prayer for adjournment to unable him to file a further counter- affidavit in view of the amendments allowed by the Court. All the prayers are allowed, in the interest of justice. Put up this matter again on the Board on 11th November, 1999. Sri Upadhyaya also comes up with a prayer for adjournment to unable him to file a further counter- affidavit in view of the amendments allowed by the Court. All the prayers are allowed, in the interest of justice. Put up this matter again on the Board on 11th November, 1999. A copy of the further affidavits, however, must be served on the other side by 9th November, 1999. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 11-11-1999 The petitioner in person comes up with a prayer for adjournment on the ground that he has just now received the copies of the counter-affidavit filed through Mr. A. B. L. Gaur and the Supplementary counter-affidavit filed through Mr. Upadhyay. Put up this matter in the next cause list dated 19-11-1999 with this clarification that the petitioner must service the proposed rejoinder-affidavit to the aforementioned counter-affidavits on the learned Counsel for the Respondents by 16-11-1999. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 19-11-1999 As prayed for on the ground of illness of Sri S. N. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, this case will not be taken up today. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 8-12-1999 A prayer for adjournment has been made on the ground of ailment in the eye of Sri S. N. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the respondent. Put up on 20-12-1999 with consent of all concerned. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 20-12-1999 An adjournment is sought for on the ground of illness of Sri S. N. Upadhyay, who has gone to New Delhi for treatment of his eyes. Put up this case on 6th January, 2000 with consent of the petitioner in person as well as other learned Counsel for other respondents. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 6-1-2000 One of the submissions, viz. , submission No. (iv) made on behalf of the petitioner in person as noted in order dated 23-9-1999, read thus: "even though he had submitted his Show Cause/explanation dated 19-2-1999 by Registered post to Smt. Anita Singh, Special Secretary, Technical Education, Section 1, Sachivalaya, who was the Enquiry Officer with copy to Honble the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary of the State, the Secretary (Vigilance) and Dr. Gaur himself, as it is apparent from the documents appended as part of Annexure `4 itself, the certificates granted by the Postal Authorities, yet in the office order it has been wrongly stated that no explanation of his has been given. This fatal infirmity goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the impugned office order. " No answer is being furnished by Mr. Upadhyay to the aforementioned submission on the ground that he does not represent Smt. Anita Singh or Dr. Gaur. This writ petition will be heard (it means we are admitting this writ petition ). Issue notice to non- represented respondents, for which necessary requisites etc. must be filed within 11 days, failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed as against those persons and further as in their absence no effective order can be passed, this writ petition shall stand dismissed in its entirety as having become incompetent without further reference to a Bench. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, we make the Rule returnable on 17-2- 2000. The office is directed to despatch the notices to the non-represented Respondents the very next day of their filing. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 13-1-2000 Office Report Notices issued to non-represented respondents i. e. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 by R. P. A. D. fixing 17-2-2000. 16-2-2000 Office Report In compliance with Courts order dated 6-1-2000 notices were issued to non-represented respondents i. e. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 by R. P. A. D. on 13-1-2000 fixing 17-2-2000. Office copy is on record. It is further stated that neither acknowledgement nor undelivered covers have been received back after service of notice. Put up for order. 24-2-2000 Put up in the next cause list dated 3-3-2000. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 13-3-2000 List in the next cause list. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 10-4-2000 The case in question is running in the daily cause list. Let this application be pressed when the case is printed in the daily cause list. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, j 13-4-2000 As prayed for on the ground of illness of Sri. A. B. L. Gaur, learned Counsel for the Respondents; this case will not be taken up today. Let this application be pressed when the case is printed in the daily cause list. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, j 13-4-2000 As prayed for on the ground of illness of Sri. A. B. L. Gaur, learned Counsel for the Respondents; this case will not be taken up today. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 4-5-2000 As prayed for on the ground of illness of Sri. A. B. L. Gaur, learned Counsel for the Respondents; this case will not be taken up today. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 4-5-2000 As prayed for on the ground of illness of Mr. S. N. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 this case will not be taken up today. Honble/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Honble/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 11-5-2000 Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. Once temporary passed over. No time left. Left out. Sd/- Bench Secretary 18-5-2000 An adjournment is sought for on the ground of illness of Mr. S. N. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Put up on Monday even as an unlisted one as prayed for by Mr. A. C. Agrawal, the petitioner in person. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 22-5-2000 The petitioner, appearing in person, prays to adjourn this case for tomorrow as he intends to file an application for restoration of the amendment application which was allowed conditionally but at the same time stood dismissed on the 8th day because of non-compliance of peremptory order dated 26- 10-1999. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 23-5-2000 The petitioner, who appears in person, filed an application but without serving a copy thereof on the learned Standing Counsel. Time till tomorrow is granted to the petitioner to serve a copy of the application on the learned Standing Counsel and to file a receipt showing service of this application on the learned Standing Counsel, failing which this application shall standing dismissed without further reference to a Bench. The learned Standing Counsel Sri H. R. Mishra files a counter-affidavit but only serving its copy on the petitioner, in person. Time till tomorrow is granted to serve a copy of this counter-affidavit on the other Respondents and file a receipt failing which this counter-affidavit will not be taken up in consideration at the time of submissions. The learned Standing Counsel Sri H. R. Mishra files a counter-affidavit but only serving its copy on the petitioner, in person. Time till tomorrow is granted to serve a copy of this counter-affidavit on the other Respondents and file a receipt failing which this counter-affidavit will not be taken up in consideration at the time of submissions. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- Lakshmi Bihari, J. 5-7-2000 The petitioner, who appears in person, prays to adjourn this case on the ground that he intends to file a rejoinder as well as an amendment application and affidavit of service. He is directed to serve copies of the aforementioned papers on the learned Counsel for the Respondent in course of the day and file receipts thereof. Put up in the next cause list. Liberty is granted to the respondents to file any affidavit in opposition to the aforementioned papers before this case is taken up. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- S. K. Jain, J. 11-7-2000 Office Report No rejoinder-affidavit and affidavit of service has been filed. 17-8-2000 As prayed for on the ground of illness of Sri S. N. Upadhyay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent this case will not be taken up today rather it shall be listed tomorrow even as unlisted case. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- S. K. Jain, J. 18-8-2000 The petitioner files an amendment application. It is being put on the record. Sri R. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the respondents, prays to adjourn this case to enable him to have instructions as to whether the Respondents concerned will file any counter to this amendment application or not. The prayer is allowed. Put up in the next cause list. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- S. K. Jain, J. 29-8-2000 Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. . . . . of 2000 dated 18-8-2000 and Civil Misc. Application No. . . . . . of 2000 dated 23-5-2000. Having heard the petitioner in person and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, in the interest of justice the prayers made in these two applications are allowed provided they are incorporated within one week from today, failing which these applications shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. If the aforesaid peremptory orders are complied with, then this writ petition will be listed again on 6th September, 2000. If the aforesaid peremptory orders are complied with, then this writ petition will be listed again on 6th September, 2000. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/- S. K. Jain, J. 23-10-2000 Honble Binod Kumar Roy, J. Honble R. P. Misra, J. Passed Over Sd/- Bench Secretary" 11. Apart from the aforementioned record from the list and progress register etc. maintained in the office of our Court, following facts are clear, some of which were already referred to by us in Paragraph 6 of our order dated 8-11-2000. On 26-10-1999 the contemner had pressed his Amendment application which was allowed. His prayer for adjournment on the ground that he has to file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit was allowed. Where was the occasion for one of us becoming furious on him and making of the alleged statements as falsely suggested. The order of that date shows that the contemner had not even pressed his prayer for correction of any order. On the next day i. e. , 11th November, 1999 also he came with a prayer for adjournment which was granted. On the next date i. e. , on 19-11-1999 the case was not taken up on the ground of illness of Sri Upadhyay who represented Respondent No. 1. On 8-12-1999 and 20-12-1999 the case was adjourned on the ground of illness of Sri Upadhyay with consent of the contemner. On the next date i. e. , on 6-1-2000 the contemners writ petition was admitted directing issuance of notices to the non-represented Respondents making the Rule returnable on 17-2- 2000. On 24-2-2000 the writ petition was listed at Item No. 47 (10th case for hearing) in the printed Cause-list, apart from Fresh cases printed in the computerised list which under the practice of this Court is required to be taken before the cases of the printed cause list. On 13-3-2000 the writ petition was listed at Serial No. 94 (at Serial No. 13 amongst Hearing cases) in the printed cause list apart from Fresh cases as per the computerised list. The record shows that the Application dated 7-4-2000 was not pressed on 13-4-2000 rather on the ground of illness of Sri A. B. L. Gaur, the learned Counsel for one of the respondents, the hearing was adjourned for the day or even thereafter. The record shows that the Application dated 7-4-2000 was not pressed on 13-4-2000 rather on the ground of illness of Sri A. B. L. Gaur, the learned Counsel for one of the respondents, the hearing was adjourned for the day or even thereafter. On 4-5-2000 the case was adjourned for the day on the ground of illness of Sri S. N. Upadhyay and thereafter, no time was left to take it up. On 18-5-2000 the case was adjourned again on the ground of illness of Mr. Upadhyay. On 22- 5-2000 it was on the contemners prayer the case was adjourned so that he could file an application for restoration of his amendment application which had stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 26-10-1999. On 23-5-2000 the case was adjourned as per his prayer to enable him to serve copy of his restoration application. Thereafter Summer Vacation intervened. On 5th July, 2000 the case was listed before us. The contemner prayer for adjournment was allowed. On 17-8-2000 on the ground of illness of Sri Upadhyay, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the case was adjourned to 18-8-2000. On 18-8-2000 the contemner filed another Amendment application which was put on record and an opportunity was granted to the respondents to file counter, if any. On 29-8-2000 the contemners two petitions were allowed. 12. On 11-9-2000 he filed his alleged complaint dated 9-9-2000 before Honble The Chief Justice of India. Thereafter, the writ petition was listed on 23-10-2000 and on a prayer it was passed over. The facts aforesaid clearly shows that between 26-10-1999 and 23-10-2000 whenever he made prayers either for adjournment or through any application, all were allowed after taking up his case when it reached on call. Where was thus any scope for making even an iota of grievance? His complaint shows his motive, namely, for taking an appropriate action against only one of us by making false and scandalous allegations in regard to our administration of justice and bringing one of us to disrepute for the reasons best known to him even though whatever has been done, it was done by our Division Bench collectively and not singly. His complaint shows his motive, namely, for taking an appropriate action against only one of us by making false and scandalous allegations in regard to our administration of justice and bringing one of us to disrepute for the reasons best known to him even though whatever has been done, it was done by our Division Bench collectively and not singly. We further find therein even an allegation made by him against our Honble The Chief Justice that when he tried to contact His Lordship he was not permitted to meet him and that His Lordships P. P. S had not entertained any of his complaints. Surprisingly he has not brought on the record by way of Annexure to this application any of his complaints which he allegedly wanted to hand over to Honble the Chief Justice through his Lordships P. P. S. Nothing prevented him to send copy of his alleged complaint by Registered Post to Honble the Chief Justice. 13. On 24-10-2000 the contemner filed his 1st Transfer application under Section 151 C. P. C. (without disclosing the filing of his complaint dated 6-9-2000 before Honble the Chief Justice of India) duly identified by Sri Om Prakash, Advocate of this Court almost repeating his allegations against one of us. The allegations made against Honble the Chief Justice or P. S. S. were not made therein for the reasons best known to the contemner. 14. The plight of this Court is well known. Apart from the fact that there is a great shortage of Judges, there are cases and cases which are being listed as fresh cases in the computerised list which are being taken up first. Then there is another computerised list of Miscellaneous Applications which are being taken on priority basis. There is also a list of unlisted cases which are also being taken on priority basis. Thereafter, the cases under heading for Orders printed in the supplementary cause list and daily cause list are being taken up followed by the cases under hearing for Admission similarly printed are being taken up. Thereafter, the cases listed for hearing either in the Supplementary Cause List or the Cause List of the day are being taken up seriatem-wise. This is the practice prevalent in the High Court which is being followed by us. Thereafter, the cases listed for hearing either in the Supplementary Cause List or the Cause List of the day are being taken up seriatem-wise. This is the practice prevalent in the High Court which is being followed by us. After its admission the petitioners writ petition was listed for hearing but down in the list giving precedence to the earlier specially fixed cases by Honble the Chief Justice or otherwise. The contemners writ petition after exhaustion and/or passed over fresh cases and listed on priority basis his case was called out for hearing on 8-11-2000 but surprisingly the transfer application was found which baffled us. Thereafter, what happened stands reflected in the order dated 8-11-2000, which needs no repetition except that this transfer application was not pressed by the contemners learned Counsel and accordingly dismissed by us which is evident from the opening paragraph of our order dated 8-11-2000 and after initiation of Criminal Contempt proceedings we had fixed 10. 00 a. m. of 27- 11-2000 for filing his show cause as well as his appearance in person. 15. On 27-11-2000 when the contempt proceeding was taken up, he through his learned Counsel prayed for adjournment on account of pendency of the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4140 of 2000 said to have been preferred against our order dated 8-11-2000 in which 4th December, 2000 has been fixed for its hearing, without filing his show cause. We on his prayer adjourned the further hearing of our proceedings to 14-12-2000 giving 2nd opportunity to file his show cause. Even though his S. L. P. was finally dismissed as withdrawn on 4-12-2000 he did not file his show cause by 14-12-2000. On 14-12- 2000 the contempt proceeding was listed before one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) and Honble Mr. Justice A. K. Yog. One of us (A. K. Yog, J.) expressed his inability to hear the contempt proceeding in the backdrop that he was engaged by the contemner as a Counsel earlier and the case was directed to be placed before Bench of which he is not a member, without stating the aforementioned fact. Thereafter, surprisingly, instead of filing his show cause, he again filed for the 2nd time Criminal Misc. Thereafter, surprisingly, instead of filing his show cause, he again filed for the 2nd time Criminal Misc. Application No. 105819 of 2000 on 14th December, 2000 itself for transferring the case from one of us for the reasons and facts given in his affidavit which were again scandalous of which we came to know on 10-8- 2001 when our Bench was formed and record including the 2nd Transfer Application filed under Chapter XXXV-E of the Rules of the Court was produced before us. What happened in Court on 10-8-2001 before us by 11. 30 a. m. stands reflected in our order dated 10-8-2001 and we gave 3rd opportunity to the contemner to file his show cause and in our Chambers at 1. 30 p. m. when we reassembled to hear the contempt proceedings further also stands reflected in the order of the day passed subsequently which needs no reiteration. It is, however, clarified that the only submission made by Sri A. N. Srivastava in relation to the second Transfer Petition was that it is required to be placed before Honble the Chief Justice and it should not have been placed before us to which we told him that Honble the Chief Justice has himself passed his orders on 1-8-2001 for placing this 2nd transfer application before the appropriate Bench and thus it is we who are required to dispose it of. Thereafter, Sri Srivastava maintained his silence for sometime, then cited Dr. L. P. Misras case without showing any sentence from that judgment to support his submission. Then he came up offering apology on behalf of the contemner on which we requested him to show us any apology tendered in writing. Then he came up with a plea that atleast 5 minutes time be granted which will be reasonable for filing his apology/show cause and that he is not pressing the Transfer Application which be dismissed as not pressed and what happened thereafter, stands reflected in our order dated 10-8-2001 and needs no reiteration. 16. The office of the Court (Joint Registrar, Criminal Department) sent a copy of Order dated 10-8-2001 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad as well as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad both for compliance of the directions. 17. 16. The office of the Court (Joint Registrar, Criminal Department) sent a copy of Order dated 10-8-2001 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad as well as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad both for compliance of the directions. 17. A report dated 13-8-2001 was forwarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to Joint Registrar (Criminal Department) of this Court forwarding a report dated 13-8-2001 of Thanadhyaksha, Shivkuti (Station House Officer, Police Station Shivkuti) stating as follows: He along with Sub-Inspector Shiva Nand etc. went to the residence of the contemner where Smt. Kamal Agrawal (wife of the contemner), Gaurav Agrawal (son of the contemner) and Km. Sweta Agrawal (daughter of the contemner) met but the contemner was not found; that they had informed him that the contemner had come at 4. 00 p. m. on 10-8-2001 and hurriedly after drinking a glass of water left telling that he will talk on telephone; that Smt. Kamal Agrawal (wife of the contemner) stated that neither her husband is ill nor has he been hospitalised in any hospital; and that the Principal of the College informed him vide his letter dated August 13, 2001 that A. C. Agrawal, the contemner, was not found present nor has he taken any leave for his absence nor there is any information in the office in connection with his illness. Yesterday when his attention was drawn to the aforementioned reports he made a request to go through them on which they were handed over to him by our Bench Secretary. He perused them for about 20-25 minutes. Thereafter, he stated that it is a fact that he went to his residence at 4. 00 p. m. on 10-8-2001 and had taken a glass of water but thereafter, he had left his residence. He, however, was found by us not in a position to make any statement to the contrary in regard to the statements made by his wife, son and daughter that he was not ill. By that time the clock had struck 4. 00 p. m. and we proceeded to dictate our orders. When we had reached last part of our order he came up with a prayer to give him a copy of those documents which we directed to be handed over which he also received. 18. Today the contemner, however, took up the following stand before us: His family had left the colony at 2. When we had reached last part of our order he came up with a prayer to give him a copy of those documents which we directed to be handed over which he also received. 18. Today the contemner, however, took up the following stand before us: His family had left the colony at 2. 30 p. m. on 11-8-2001 due to police access and misbehaviour; the report dated 13-8-2001 of the police is forged and fabricated; signatures of his family members must be forged ones as he was told by his son that the signatures were put in a vertical order; in the report submitted by the police one of the witnesses Mohd. Shamim, who is Security Officer posted in the colony, had also put his signatures which is not there; similarly one Mr. Singh (his full name he is not remembering) who is also Security Officer of the college, had put his signatures on the police papers but it is not there. We should have granted time to him to move the Honble Supreme Court and that being advised he has filed the petition which be accepted. The contemner informs us today that this second Transfer Application was prepared by his learned Counsel Sri Shishindra Tripathi with his consent. He also informs us that he was advised by Sri Srivastava not to file his show cause before us but before another Bench, which fact was also not apprised by Sri Srivastava to us on 10-8-2001. 19. In that regard the reply of the learned A. G. A. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra was as follows: After the passing of our orders on 10-8-2001 in our chambers Sri Srivastava did not inform us that the contemner intends to move the Honble Supreme Court and thus we should stay the operation of our order. Since the contemner had absconded from the Court and no prayer was made by his Counsel, stay was rightly not granted. Nothing has been disclosed by the contemner that he ever made any complaint against the police that they had used any coercion on his family members before the higher police authorities or even before this Court; on proof of his alleged illness has been brought on the records of this Court by the contemner who according to his own statement made yesterday before us had went to his residence at 4. 00 p. m. on 10-8-2001 meaning thereby he was keeping a close vigil on the outcome of the contempt proceedings and the moment he came to know of our orders, he fled away; he is not denying the signatures of his family members on the police report, what he says is that according to one of his family members, namely his son, they had put their signatures in vertical order; on all the reports there are signatures of the witnesses after the search; the facts stated in the letter of the Principal of the College have not been put to dispute by the contemner; the fact of sending his complaint dated 9-9- 2000 before Honble The Chief Justice of India allegedly on 11-9-2000 was suppressed by the contemner in the Transfer Applications, may be on account of the fact that in his complaint he has gone even to the extent of making allegations against Honble The Chief Justice and his P. P. S. ; he should be directed to file copy of the S. L. P. and Criminal Appeal preferred by him before the Honble Supreme Court which may show scandalisation of administration of justice; from perusal of the order of the Honble Supreme Court it does not appear that the contemner had obtained certified copy of the order inasmuch as he has made a prayer for granting exemption in this regard and reiterated that in the facts and circumstances the apology is not fit to be accepted. Even though copy of the Reports were served on him yesterday he had not filed any affidavit denying correctness of the statements made therein and thus the statements made therein be accepted. 20. The contemner handed over a paper book of his Criminal Appeal filed before the Honble Supreme Court to Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A. G. A. taking up a stand that for the present he is not possessing a copy of the S. L. P. filed before Honble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 4-12-2000. 21. After looking at the brief of the Criminal Appeal of the contemner filed before the Honble Supreme Court the learned A. G. A. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, inter alia, submitted as follows: (i) Only 5 minutes time was prayed for at 11. 30 a. m. for filing his show cause or apology by Sri Srivastava which was not filed till 1. After looking at the brief of the Criminal Appeal of the contemner filed before the Honble Supreme Court the learned A. G. A. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, inter alia, submitted as follows: (i) Only 5 minutes time was prayed for at 11. 30 a. m. for filing his show cause or apology by Sri Srivastava which was not filed till 1. 30 p. m. but a contrary impression has been given in the Appeal. (ii) The allegation of the contemner against his own Counsel Sri Srivastava that he had advised him not to file his show cause appears to be a creation of his own brain inasmuch as such as case has not been stated in the Appeal before the Honble Supreme Court. (iii) Even though both transfer applications were not pressed and thus dismissed yet grievance to the contrary have been made before the Honble Supreme Court giving a wrong interpretation to the Rules of the Court which applies when ex facie contempt is committed and proceedings are drawn up under the codified Act and not under Article 215 under which no rule has been framed. (iv) False insinuations and suggestions have been made in several paragraphs of the petition of appeal against one of us. The 2nd Transfer Application was itself directed by Honble the Chief Justice to be placed before the appropriate Bench which was our Bench and it was not pressed by Sri Srivastava. (v) The fact that the contemner has filed a Review Petition before the Honble Supreme Court against the order dated 4-12-2000 dismissing his S. L. P. as withdrawn has not been stated in this application though stated in the Criminal Appeal. (vi) The Counsel for the contemner never prayed for suspending the operation of the order dated 10-8- 2001 and a fault is sought to be made on the Court. (vii) It has been wrongly alleged that listing of the contempt matter before our Court was on irregularity. The list published on the authority of the Honble Chief Justice showed its listing before us and time was granted repeatedly but not availed. (viii) An erroneous impression has been given there that the case was listed before only one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) whereas it was listed before our Division Bench in which orders have been passed by our Division Bench. (viii) An erroneous impression has been given there that the case was listed before only one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) whereas it was listed before our Division Bench in which orders have been passed by our Division Bench. (ix) Accommodations were made of the contemners when he did not appear during the strike period as well as otherwise yet a contrary impression has been given. (x) Contempt proceedings under Article 215 are being decided on affidavits and not on evidence but suggestion to the contrary have been given. The rules referred to were not made under Article 215 but under the Contempt of Court Act. It is well settled that under the former, Court can evolve its own procedure. (xi) We had passed orders under Article 215 of the Constitution and not under the Contempt of Court. Appeal being a creature of Statute and Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1871 provides appeal before the Honble Supreme Court against the orders passed under the Contempt of Court Act only and thus the remedy of the appellant was to file Special Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against our order like his earlier Special Leave Petition. (xii) His statement made in Paragraph 3 is apparently incorrect inasmuch as despite dismissal as withdrawn of his two transfer applications and non passing of any favourable order by Honble the Chief Justice of India on his complaint he has repeated those very scandalous and false allegations in his appeal before the Honble Supreme Court. (xiii) The contemner should be directed to make a statement whether he has obtained certified copy of our order dated 10-8-2001 on which the contemner stated that he was handed over a copy of that order by his learned Counsel Sri A. N. Srivastava. The contemner also took up a stand that he cannot say from where his learned Counsel Sri A. N. Srivasvata obtained a plain copy of our order dated 10-8-2001 but he had told him that he made an application on his behalf for supplying a certified copy of our order dated 10-8-2001 on that very day and that he himself subsequently applied for supplying a certified copy of our order dated 10-8-2001 on 13-9-2001 which has not been supplied to him till date. (xiv) From the brief of the appeal it is clear that the appeal was drawn up on 11-8-2001 i. e. , to say the very next day of our order and thus the plea of his alleged illness stands belied as it has not even been supported by production of any medical certificate or Cash Memo evidencing purchase of medicine or even before the Honble Supreme Court or before us. 22. Having perused a copy of the brief filed by the contemner before the Honble Supreme Court we think it will be improper for us to make any comment in regard to the issue raised therein. 23. However, we find that in support of his alleged illness taken before us no certificate of any Doctor showing his medical examination, prescription prescribing any medicine to him or any Cash Memo evidencing any purchase of any medicine by him to cure his alleged illness has been brought on the record. The worst is that from what precise illness he was allegedly suffering has also not been disclosed by him. On his own statement he visited his house for the first time at 4. 00 p. m. Thus the plea of the contemner in Paragraph 7 of the affidavit that he could not file his show cause or apology on 10-8-2001 as he was already ill and was suffering from high fever and sought adjournment due to that reason is non-acceptable. In regard to submission of Sri Mehrotra that he is liable to be convicted of yet another committal of contempt of Court for swearing a false affidavit in view of Dhananjay Sharmas case, we do not intend to initiate any further proceedings as his conviction and sentence awarded is considered sufficient. 24. Despite false and scandalous allegations having been made in his representation dated 9-9-2001 made before Honble the Chief Justice of India the filing of which was suppressed by the contemner in his both Transfer petitions, and therein also yet he claims in Paragraph 5, that he "has always been conscious of the dignity and majesty of the Honble Court and had never any intentions to commit contempt or disregard in any manner the dignity and decorum of the Honble Court". Yesterday, we drew his attention to those facts one by one on which he stated before us that true it is that all these amounted to grossest contempt of Court. Yesterday, we drew his attention to those facts one by one on which he stated before us that true it is that all these amounted to grossest contempt of Court. In that backdrop we asked him how the statement made by him should be believed by us. He kept silence. Today also he said nothing when we asked as to what he means by the expression `the Honble Court as used by him in Paragraphs 5 and 11 of his affidavit, he took up a stand that he meant our Court. 25. In Paragraph 6 he has wrongly stated to the effect that time was granted to him to file apology whereas time was granted by us to file show cause and/or apology whatever he thinks proper by 1. 30 p. m. which was claimed to be filed within 5 minutes by Sri Srivastava in his presence in Court much before lunch. 26. Mr. Mehrotra, learned A. G. A. rightly submitted that while adjourning this case to our chambers we had given him 3rd and last indulgence to the contemner to offer his apology expressing sincere regrets etc. but that was not availed by him and that from the brief of the criminal appeal it appears that a grievance was made by the contemner before the Honble Supreme Court that we should have given him atleast one more opportunity for filing his apology and on a prayer made by his learned Counsel before the Honble Supreme Court yet another indulgence has been given to the contemner to file an apology which clearly meant genuine, sincere and unqualified apology which has not been tendered before us and thus it be rejected in view of several pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court itself. 27. We are not satisfied with his statement made in paragraph 11. Firstly, the contemner has not come with any prayer to delete his allegations from his transfer applications which will remain on the record of this Court. Secondly, his apology is apparently an after thought. Thirdly, it is also a qualified apology and not a sincere one from the core of his heart. His claim set up that he does not have law degree etc. Secondly, his apology is apparently an after thought. Thirdly, it is also a qualified apology and not a sincere one from the core of his heart. His claim set up that he does not have law degree etc. in Paragraph 4 is irrelevant inasmuch as on his own stand taken before us that since drafting of the first Transfer Petition he is availing services of Advocate in this Court and before the Honble Supreme Court. 28. We thus accept the submission of Sri Mehrotra clarifying that we are not expressing ourselves in regard to the issues raised by the contemner in his appeal. It is true that the fact of dismissal of his review petition of the order dated 4-12-2000 dismissing his Special Leave Petition as withdrawn was not brought to the notice of ours earlier. He has not filed any affidavit of his and his son to deny the correctness of the facts stated in the reports even though this case, stands listed to be taken from 1. 45 p. m. Ours is a proceeding under Article 215 and not under the codified Act requiring to take evidence as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, besides the facts stated therein are not even of much significance when the apology tendered is with its and buts. His writ petition is still pending disposal after we released. The record of the writ petition does not disclose that the contemner even made any attempt to get it speedily decided. Thus, to us it is clear that his whole intention was to get rid of one of us and for that purpose he chose to make wildest allegation in getting his writ petition transferred. In the backdrop aforementioned it is not possible for us to accept his apology which is a qualified one keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court referred to earlier by us. 29. Accordingly we are constrained in not accepting the apology and reduce or alter the sentence as per the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in P. Kasilingams case (supra) and dismiss this Misc. Application. 30. Before we part there is one aspect of the matter. We are astonished to hear what the contemner has stated before us in regard to non-receipt of the certified copy of our order. Application. 30. Before we part there is one aspect of the matter. We are astonished to hear what the contemner has stated before us in regard to non-receipt of the certified copy of our order. He/or his learned Counsel had/has a right to have a certified copy of our order though not at all entitled to have a plain copy any how. Sri Mehrotra, learned A. G. A. informs us that he got applied for supplying certified copy of our order on 16-8-2001 and it was supplied on 27-8-2001 which is in his hand also and shows us. We directed our Bench Secretary to ascertain true informations in this regard from the office. The office informs us vide its note that "copy of order dated 10-8-2001 passed in Crl. Contempt No. 47 of 2000 was applied by Sri A. C. Agrawal for the first time on 13-9-2001 vide S. S. No. 26589. On being asked by us, orally we are informed that since the records were submitted before Honble the Chief Justice the certified copy could not prepared and hence not being supplied till date to Sri Agrawal. 31. As prayed for by Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A. G. A. the office will hand over a copy of this order by tomorrow to him. It is made clear that if the contemner files an application for supplying certified copy of this order, the same shall be handed over to him also by the office by tomorrow as per the Rules of the Court. Application dismissed. .