Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1133 (BOM)

Vinay Asharam Rathi v. M. R. Rao & others

2002-10-29

R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR

body2002
JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Respondent No. 1 present in-person. On oral request on behalf of respondent No. 2, his presence is exempted till further orders. 2. On oral request by the petitioner, time granted to file further affidavit. 3. Certain instances, which have occurred inrelation to service of notice in the present proceedings upon the respondent No. 2, and brought to the notice of this Court, warrant the following order. 4. The Bailiffs reports in respect of attempt to serve the notice of the proceedings upon the respondent No. 2 disclose that on two occasions, the Bailiff had been to the office of the respondent No. 2, firstly, on 3rd June, 2002 and then on 14th June, 2002 to serve the notice upon respondent No. 1. 5. On both the occasions, he met Personal Assistant to the Commissioner of Police, the name of the Personal Assistant being Mr. Ramani. It was informed to the Baliff on both the occasions that the Commissioner of Police had gone to Mantralaya for meeting and there was no fix time known for his return to the office. On account of non-availability of the Police Commissioner, the notice was returned unserved. 6. Undoubtedly, in terms of Rule 19(c) of Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960, notices issued in contempt proceedings are to be served personally on the person to whom the notice is addressed to, unless otherwise directed by the Court. In the case in hand, there was no direction to serve the notice on any person other than to whom it was addressed to. 7. It is to be noted that the Bailiffs Report clearly reveal that he had been to the Office of the Police Commissioner and the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner had informed him about the non-availability of the Commissioner in the office, as he had gone to Mantralaya and further that it was not known as to when he would return to the office. Obviously, the Personal Assistant to the Police Commissioner would not have given such information to the Bailiff, without enquiring the purpose for which the presence of the Police Commissioner was required in the office and what sort of notice was required to be served upon him. Obviously, the Personal Assistant to the Police Commissioner would not have given such information to the Bailiff, without enquiring the purpose for which the presence of the Police Commissioner was required in the office and what sort of notice was required to be served upon him. It is unbelievable that Personal Assistant to the Police Commissioner would give information about the whereabouts of the Police Commissioner to any stranger without enquiring about the identity of the person making enquiry and the purpose for which he wants to meet the Commissioner. That apart, the person had gone to the Office of the Police Commissioner on two occasions and on both the occasions, the same person who is stated to be the Personal Assistant of the Police Commissioner had met the bailiff and had given the same information to the bailiff. Inspite of this, it is surprising that no enquiry was made from the Office of the Police Commissioner in the office of the Court about the nature of the notice, and also to approach the Court and to accept the notice. When a Government Officer and particularly, a Police Officer is made aware of the fact that certain proceedings are pending against him in the Court, and in that regard, the Court has issued him a notice and the Courts Officer had tried to serve the notice in relation to such proceedings upon him, and the Police Officer being not available in the office, the notice is required to be returned to the Court, it is certainly expected from such Police Officer either by himself or through his agent to approach the Court and to enquire and to accept such notice and not to wait till the Court issues fresh notice in relation to the proceedings pending in the Court. The Commissioner of the Police, who is the Head of the Department, as far as the city limits of Mumbai are concerned, who is expected to be kept informed about the happenings in and around the city, cannot be believed not to be made aware by his Personal Assistant about the bailiffs approach to his office for service of the notice from the Court. There was no attempt by the office of the Police Commissioner to enquire about this notice from the Court. There was no attempt by the office of the Police Commissioner to enquire about this notice from the Court. Such an attitude on the part of the Police authorities is certainly not expected and needs to be discouraged. 8. In this connection, it is also necessary to refer to Order V, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which speaks about the services of the notices and summonses on the Public Officers. If officer, not belonging to the Indian Military, Naval or Air Forces, or is the servant of a railway company or local authority, the Court may, it appears to it that the summons may be most conveniently so served, send it by registered post pre-paid for acknowledgment for service on the defendant to the head of the office in which he is employed, together with a copy to be sent to the defendant. If the public officer can be served with the notice in the manner stated under Order V, Rule 27, and a notice is issued to the police authorities, who are the law enforcing agencies and concerned with the maintenance of law and order in the State, are certainly expected to co-operate with the Court in every respect in the administration of justice and even in the matter of expediting the proceedings before the Court and for that purpose, it would be necessary to accept the service of the proceedings by all the parties to the proceedings before the Court, and therefore, in that regard, certainly the Police Officers to whom it is made known that proceedings against such officers are pending in the Court, would be expected to co-operative with the Court by accepting such notice and not to be lethargic and indifferent towards service of the notices issued by the Court. 9. In the case in hand, as already observed above, it is to be noted with displeasure that the office of the Commissioner of Police was expected to be rather prompt and careful in getting the service of the notice effected on the respondent No. 2 from the bailiff who had approached the office on two occasions. 9. In the case in hand, as already observed above, it is to be noted with displeasure that the office of the Commissioner of Police was expected to be rather prompt and careful in getting the service of the notice effected on the respondent No. 2 from the bailiff who had approached the office on two occasions. Having not done so, it is necessary to issue direction to the Home Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra that appropriate steps are expected to be taken from his office, giving directions to all Government Officers that whenever a notice is issued by any Court, there should not be any sort of hesitation or an attempt to postpone the service of the notice and summons issued by the Court and every effort should be made to accept the service of the notice on such officer and authorities. The Home Secretary in that regard, is expected to issue necessary circular to all the Government Offices and to file compliance report in that regard with the Registry of this Court within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order. 10. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the Home Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, for compliance of the directions hereinabove. 11. S.O. to 26th November, 2002. -----