Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 883 (MP)

Bar Association, Manavar v. Shri Satyendra Singh

2015-08-24

D.K.PALIWAL, P.K.JAISWAL

body2015
ORDER 1. This contempt petition has been filed under section 10 read with sections 15 and 16 of Contempt of Courts Act. 2. Brief facts are that Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate practising at Manawar, District Dhar on 16.7.2014 had appeared before the respondent Tahsildar in the matter of Hari s/o Dharamiya, r/o Vayal and sought time tol file reply. Advocates Shri Himanshu Bhakt, Shri Amit Sharma and Shri Yogendra Singh Tomar were also present in the Court room. The respondent Tahsildar questioned Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan regarding his power to appear in the case, upon it Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan has submitted his Vakalatnama, but respondent pointing his finger at Advocate refused to accept the Vakalatnama. Respondent also told that he shall hear the case at 4:00 p.m. and shall accept the Vakalatnama then only and thereafter thrown the Vakalatnama and asked Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan to get out from the Court room. The respondent also stated that he shall accept the Vakalatnama if he wishes to or he can also reject the Vakalatnama. Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate made a complaint against the respondent to the Bar Association, Manawar regarding the aforesaid incident. On receipt of the complaint the Bar Association called a General Body Meeting and it was resolved to constitute a investigating team consisting of Advocate Shri D.D. Patidar, Shri H.R. Patidar, Shri K.C. Patidar, Shri N. Choyal and Shri Siraj Khan to investigate into the matter. The investigating team recorded the statements of witnesses and also sought explanation from respondent, but he did not appear or made himself available before the investigating team. The investigating team submitted its report to the Bar Association, which is marked as Annexure P-2. The respondent too also submitted a complaint dated 16.7.2014 on 17.7.2014 before the Bar Association. The Bar Association, Manawar on consideration of the report submitted by the investigating team and complaint of the respondent concluded that respondent is obstructing the lawyer in carrying out his legal duties during continuance of judicial proceeding, hence, it amounts to criminal contempt and it was resolved by the General Body to institute contempt proceedings. The Bar Association, Manawar on consideration of the report submitted by the investigating team and complaint of the respondent concluded that respondent is obstructing the lawyer in carrying out his legal duties during continuance of judicial proceeding, hence, it amounts to criminal contempt and it was resolved by the General Body to institute contempt proceedings. The President of Bar Association, Manawar has applied for consent under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the Advocate General, State of Madhya Pradesh and the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh vide its DO No.17168 dated 26.9.2014 gave his consent to the President, Bar Association, Manawar for instituting this petition. Thereafter this petition has been filed praying that the respondent has committed criminal contempt of Court by insulting and misbehaving with the Advocate by obstructing the administration of justice, therefore, prayed that he be suitably punished. 3. In reply respondent denied the allegations. It is denied that Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate has submitted his Vakalatnama before the respondent and respondent has refused to accept the Vakalatnama. It is further denied that respondent has pointed his finger at Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate and told that he shall appear in the matter at 4:00 p.m. and shall submit Vakalatnama then only. It is stated that 16.7.2014 the respondent was hearing the revenue matter in his Court at about 2:45 p.m. Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate appeared in the Court and sought time for filing reply till then no Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Shri Hari s/o Dharamiya. In the meantime Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate started shouting in the Court of respondent. When respondent was taking up some another matter, but complaint of the case and Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate had started discussing the matter in a shouting language. Respondent made both of them understand that they will not shout each other in such a fashion and maintain decorum of the Court. On this Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate continued to shout in the Court as a result of which not only the Court, but other parties present in the Court and the Court staff were disturbed. The respondent has again tried to make Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate understand that he should maintain decorum of the Court and did not shout, but he continued shouting. The respondent has again tried to make Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate understand that he should maintain decorum of the Court and did not shout, but he continued shouting. In the circumstances the respondent asked Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate to go out of the Court so that the decorum shall be maintained. The respondent has been found that no Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate in the matter. It is further stated that on 16.7.2014 itself respondent has sent a letter to the Bar Association and also endorsed a copy of the SDO(R), Manawar as well as the Chairman of the State Bar Council. It is stated that the respondent was performing the quasi judicial work, therefore, every Advocate including Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate was required to maintain the decorum of the Court and if it was not maintained then ask the person concerned to maintain decorum of the Court, which cannot amount to contempt of Court. It is stated that there is no factual and legal force in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. It is, therefore, prayed that the same may be dismissed with costs. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The complaint made by Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate to the Adhyaksh Bar Association, Manawar (Annexure P-1) reveals that he appeared at 2:30 p.m. On 16.7.2014 along with his client. He and his client sought adjournment from Tahsildar. Tahsildar Satyendra Singh told that his power has not been filed, then he filed the power. Shri Satyendra Singh refused to accept his power pointing a finger towards him and told that case be taken at 4:00 p.m. and then he would accept the power. He also asked to lealve the Court and thrown his power in air and thus misbehaved with him. It is further mentioned that Shri Satyendra Singh used to drink cold drink and also eat Alubada, Kachouri and Sev during the course of the case in the dais which is against the dignity of the Court and, thus, he has committed contempt of Court. A committee of Advocates have enquired into the complaint and submitted its report. On perusal of report (Ex.P-2) it appears that during enquiry, statement of Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate, Shri Himanshu Bhakt, Advocate, Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate and Shri Yogendra Singh Tomar, Advocate were recorded. A committee of Advocates have enquired into the complaint and submitted its report. On perusal of report (Ex.P-2) it appears that during enquiry, statement of Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate, Shri Himanshu Bhakt, Advocate, Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate and Shri Yogendra Singh Tomar, Advocate were recorded. It is also mentioned that members of the committee went to the office of the Tahsildar, Manawar to collect the information. They were informed that Shri Satyendra Singh is out of station. It is mentioned that on the basis of the statements recorded by the committee, it is proposed that Satyendra Singh has committed contempt of Court. Hence, proceeding be initiated against him. 5. From perusal of copies of statements recorded by the committee, it appears that Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate has repeated the allegations made in his complaint. Shri Himanshu Bhakt, Advocate, Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate and Shri Yogendra Singh Tomar, Advocate have supported the statement of Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate. It is surprising that the committee has not recorded the statements of any other person present in the Court at the time of hearing. Only the statements of members of Bar Association have been recorded. No any notice has been given to respondent to appear or submit his reply by the investigating team. It is also pertinent to mention that if it is assumed that Satyendra Singh was not available on 17.7.2014, it is expected from the committee to wait for some time to get the version of Satyendra Singh regarding the allegations made by Shri Jitendra Singh against respondent and without knowing his stand, the report has been submitted which is against the well established principles of natural justice. It is also pertinent to mention that the report (Annexure P-2) shows that no finding has been recorded how Shri Satyendra Singh has committed the contempt of Court. 6. Respondent Shri Satyendra Singh had denied the allegations made by Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate and stated that on 16.7.2014, respondent was hearing the revenue matter in his Court, at about 2:45 p.m. Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate appeared in the Court and sought time for filing reply, till then no Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Shri Hari s/o Dharamiya. In the meantime, Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan started shouting in the Court of respondent. In the meantime, Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan started shouting in the Court of respondent. When respondent was taking up some another matter, complainant of the case and Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate started discussing the matter in shouting language. Respondent made both of them understand that they will not shout each other and maintain the decorum of the Court. On this, Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate continued to shout in the Court. As a result of which, not only the Court, but other parties present in the Court and the Court staff were disturbed. Looking to such situation, it appeared that there may be fighting in the Court between complainant and Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate. The respondent asked the Advocate to go out of the Court so that the decorum of the Court shall be maintained. It is further stated that on 16.7.2014, respondent has sent a letter to the petitioner Association. 7. On perusal of the copy of the letter addressed by the respondent to Adhyaksh, Bar Association, Manawar, it appears that it has been sent on 16.7.2014 mentioning the facts stated above. Respondent has filed his affidavit and no counter-affidavit has been filed, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the respondent. 8. A legal practitioner has important duty and obligation to co-operate with the Court for just and proper administration of justice. Considering the fact that respondent without submitting his Vakalatnama was seeking adjournment and shouting in the Court while respondent was hearing other case ande when respondent asked Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate to maintain the decorum of Court, Shri Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate continued shouting, in such circumstances, in our opinion the respondent asking Shri Jitendra Singh to leave the Court does not amount to contempt of Court. In view of the aforesaid, we find that no case is made out against the respondent for committing contempt of Court. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. Rule Nishi, if any, be discharged.