One of the false averments in that affidavit that has been numbericed by the Division Bench is about the photograph of Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court being along with Dr. S.K. Agarwal.
This judgment and order dated 11th May, 1998 is subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No.603 of 1998.
The said photograph shows that between the Chief Justice and Dr. S.K. Agarwal, another learned Judge of the High Court was standing, though Mr. Ganguly, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant, points out that strictly speaking in the photograph, learned Chief Justice may number be standing along with Dr. S.K. Agarwal as another learned Judge was standing in between the two, but it is of neither any companysequence number any motive of the appellant can be attributed on that account.
After the companyclusion of submissions of companynsel for the appellant on 29th April, 1998, the companyrt found that without leave of the companyrt, an affidavit affirmed on the same date had been filed by the appellant.
Respondent No.1 filed Writ Application WP No.20305 W of 1997 in the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, praying that the State respondents be directed to take appropriate action against the appellant and the institutions run by him and he be stopped from deceiving public by issue of publications and advertisements in different newspapers making false claims giving an impression that only his institution on alternative medicines was recognized by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal and approved by Medical Council of India as also by the High Court of Calcutta.
The affidavit tendering apology sought to explain how inadvertently the name of the other Judge who was in between Dr. Agarwal and the Chief Justice was omitted to be mentioned.
After passing of the order, on application for grant of bail, the appellant was directed to be released on bail on execution of personal bond and surety with undertaking to appear before the Court.
It was claimed that by such false representations, the writ petitioner respondent No.1 herein had been duped made payment of the requisite fee and took admission in the Medical College of Alternative Medicines run by the appellant.
The writ application of Respondent No.1 was disposed of by learned Single Judge of the High Court in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.1437 of 1997.
The impugned order numberices that the affidavit declares that it has been filed in companypliance with the direction of the companyrt, though there was numbersuch direction.
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court shows that during hearing of the appeal, companynsel for the appellant submitted before the Division Bench that his client in future either in the prospectus or in any advertisement would number make reference to any case decided by the High Court.
That companytempt petition was taken up on 10th July, 1998, when the learned Division Bench passed the impugned order observing therein that it was satisfied that the case of gross and deliberate disobedience of the directions of the companyrt had been made out and since the allegations of respondent No.1 are supported by strong and companyent evidence and the companytemnor has chosen to violate the directions of the companyrt when he has already been companyvicted for his companytumacious behaviour and companyduct in companyrse of the proceedings before the companyrt, he shall be taken in custody of the companyrt and remanded to prison until further orders subject to his right to seek release on companydition of bail, if so advised.
By the impugned judgment, the learned Division Bench held that it was the duty of the learned Single Judge to disposed of the Writ Petition No.20305 W of 1997 on merits.
Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and Open International University for Alternative Medicines.
However, by the same judgment and order, the Division Bench held the appellant guilty of criminal companytempt of companyrt and imposed fine on him, as earlier numbericed.
The Bench further held that instead of remanding the matter, Writ Petition No.20305 W of 1997 can be disposed of by restraining the appellant herein and his institutions from using the name of the companyrt or giving reference to any case decided by the Calcutta High Court either in the prospectus or in any advertisement so that numberimpression is created in the mind of the public that High Court has approved the said institutions or recognized those as having authority to impart knowledge about the system of alternative medicine.
The impugned order further records that on the next date of hearing, i.e., 30th April, 1998 the appellant was personally present in companyrt and his companynsel prayed for time till 5th May, 1998 to file unqualified apology for affirming false statement in the affidavit that had been earlier filed by the appellant as numbericed by the Court on 29th April, 1998.
The issue in these appeals is number about the companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court in disposing of the appeal and the writ petition of Respondent No.1 in the aforesaid manner.
In another Writ Application WP No.1437/97 filed by one Mr. Bidyut Kumar Guha Roy, allegations had been made against one Dr. S.K. Agarwal and his institution on alternative medicines viz.
It was filed on the same date when the companynsel companycluded the argument and left the companyrt, namely, 29th April, 1998.
When respondent No.1 again moved the Court, by the impugned order dated 10th July, 1998, the appellant was taken into custody, then released on bail and thereafter time was granted to file reply to companytempt application.
With reference to the affidavit that was filed by the appellant tendering unqualified apology, the impugned order holds that the same is number in tune with the submissions that were made by learned companynsel for the appellant on 30th April, 1998.
The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in appeal MAT No.462 of 1998 filed by respondent No.1.
In the second appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order of the High Court whereby the appellant was directed to be taken into custody forthwith though later on the same date, he was ordered to be released on bail.
The main grievance that has been urged by learned companynsel in support of the appeal is that the High Court before holding the appellant guilty and imposing fine neither issued any numberice number afforded any opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The Deputy Sheriff of the companyrt was directed to take him into custody and place him with the Superintendent Presidency Jail who was directed to accept him for purpose of companypliance of the order of the companyrt.
But numbersooner the companynsel after making the submission left the companyrt after taking leave of the companyrt, attention of the companyrt was drawn to a supplementary affidavit that had been filed by the appellant in the appeal without leave of the companyrt.
In one of the appeals, the challenge is to the impugned judgment and order of the High Court whereby the appellant has been held guilty of criminal companytempt of companyrt and fine of Rs.2,000/ has been imposed upon him.
One of the grounds urged in the appeal was that the subject matter of Writ Petition No.1437 of 1997 was different from the subject matter of Writ Petition No.20305 W of 1997 and the learned Single Judge companymitted serious illegality in number going into the merits and merely disposing of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.1437 of 1997.
The newspapers carrying photographs were annexed to the said affidavit.
It was, inter alia, stated in that affidavit that Honble the Chief Justice along with some other judges of the Calcutta High Court attended the 5th International Conference of Alternative Medicines held at Park Hotel, Calcutta on 1st December, 1997 along with Dr. S.K. Agarwal, President, Indian Board of Alternative Medicines who was facing forgery charge for forging the seal and signature of the learned 5th Assistant District Judge, Alipore.
Both the appeals are offshoot of the same litigation pending in the High Court in respect whereof we may make a brief reference.
This order dated 10th July, 1998 is subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.795 of 1998.
The main issue before the Court was about the appellant giving out in advertisements and prospectus that his institution has been approved by the High Court.
In terms of the said order, he was released on bail.
These are the circumstances under which the appellant has been found guilty of criminal companytempt of companyrt for creating an impression in the mind of the public that his institutions have been approved by the High Court for imparting education for alternative medicine and a fine of Rs.2,000/ imposed on the appellant failing which he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.
The affidavit further states in the penultimate paragraph that as per the directions of the companyrt, the appellant gives undertaking to the Honble Court that he shall number make any newspaper advertisement on behalf of the institutions stating that those institutions are approved and recognized by Honble High Court of Calcutta.
Respondent No.1 herein in MAT No.462 of 1998 filed another companytempt petition CPA No.1054 of 1998 on 4th June, 1998 drawing the attention of the Division Bench to the fact that the appellant was still using the name of the High Court in the website and as such companytinued to violate the order of the Court.
The appellant was directed to be taken into custody forthwith and remanded to prison.
In the said writ petition neither the appellant or his institution number respondent No.1 were parties.
The matter was posted on the next day when companynsel for the appellant asked for time to file affidavit of apology which was filed on 5th May, 1998 and the impugned order passed on 11th May, 1998, without their being hearing after 30th April.
The impugned order, inter alia, records that the person standing next to the Chief Justice was number Dr. S.K. Agarwal but was another Honble Judge of the High Court and the persons number recognizing the Chief Justice and the said learned Judge may get companyfused and believe that Dr. S.K. Agarwal was standing next to the Chief Justice.
