Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 773 (GAU)

Sonu D/o. Sri Raghubir Singh v. State of Tripura

2011-09-16

I.A.ANSARI

body2011
ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Ms. R Guha, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Heard also Mr. TD Majumder, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. 2. While resisting the writ petition, Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have filed their counter affidavit, which has been sworn by one Sri Lalhmingliana Darlong, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, wherein the principal stand taken is that the said college is 'neither a Government institution nor is it run from the aid of the Government'. The affidavit adds, "Except some grants, it does not receive any fund from the Government for running the Institute" and, hence, the provisions of the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, are not applicable to the Respondent College. The affidavit further states that it is only the Government educational institute and the educational institute, receiving aid from the Government, which are required to reserve not less than 3% seats for persons with disability. 3. Contrary to the above stand, which has been taken, in their counter affidavit, by the Respondents aforementioned, the materials, placed on record by the writ Petitioner, show prima facie that the land, on which Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, stands, has been allotted by the Government, the infrastructure of the Respondent College has been funded by the Government and the Government has also provided fund for appointments of the faculty members of the Respondent College. In fact, there is also a statement made, on record, by the Government of Tripura that the Government of Tripura has taken over, on 23-05-2009, Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, College from GENET and has constituted a society, under the Societies Registration Act, by the name of Society for Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania. This apart, while applying to the MCI, for permission to conduct the course, in question, the Government has categorized the Respondent College as a college of the Government of Tripura with the allocation of fund made in their budget by the Government of Tripura. 4. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania. This apart, while applying to the MCI, for permission to conduct the course, in question, the Government has categorized the Respondent College as a college of the Government of Tripura with the allocation of fund made in their budget by the Government of Tripura. 4. From what have been indicated above, what prima facie transpires is that substantial part of the affidavit, filed by the contesting Respondents, namely, Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, contains false statements, which are, unless shown to the contrary, obviously intended to mislead this Court. This would amount to, if true and correct, criminal contempt, for, such statements, if allowed to stand good on record, would interfere or, at least, tend to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding and would, therefore, constitute criminal contempt. 5. In the circumstances as indicated above, this Court is of the firm view that before this writ petition is heard on merit, the Respondents concerned shall be made to appear in the Court and show cause, if any, as to why action shall not be taken against them for making averments, in their counter affidavit, which are prima facie false to their knowledge and aimed at misleading the Court. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered by the contesting Respondents, the Court may be constrained to take such consequential steps and action as may become necessary for maintaining the sanctity of this Court's proceedings in a writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, this Court may not hear the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the merit of the writ petition unless it purges the contempt provided that this Court, on receiving reply to the show cause notice, forms the opinion that the Respondents have committed contempt of this Court. [See Hadkinson v. Hadkinson (1952) 2 All ER 567 (CA): Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 : In the matter of Anil Panjwani case (2003) 7 SCC 375 .] 6. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is directed to be listed, on 19-09-2011, and on that day, Sri Lalhmingliana Darlong, Chief Executive Officer of Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, the Principal of Tripura Medical College and Dr. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is directed to be listed, on 19-09-2011, and on that day, Sri Lalhmingliana Darlong, Chief Executive Officer of Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, the Principal of Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, the Convenor, Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, and the Chairman, Administrative Committee, Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, shall appear, in person, and show cause, if any, as indicated above, as to why action, in accordance with law, shall not be taken against them for the false stand, which they have prima facie taken, while resisting the writ petition, in order to mislead this Court tending thereby to interfere with the course of administration of justice. 7. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2. 8. Let copy of this order be also served on the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, personally, by the Registry. 9. Bring the above directions to the notice of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial).