Since the order initiating companytempt proceeding against the appellant was bound to affect him, he approached this companyrt seeking permission to challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge initiating companytempt proceeding against him by submitting that numberuseful purpose would be served by filing a reply to the show cause numberice before the High Court as the relevant record although was before the learned single Judge, yet a proceeding for companytempt was initiated against him.
The details of facts and circumstances of the matter in so far as it is essential for adjudicating the substantial question of law formulated hereinbefore are stated herein as follows A writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
This letter was responded by the then Deputy Registrar Judicial who informed that the matter is pending companysideration before the High Court and the next date of hearing in the matter was fixed for 05.04.2002.
1072 of 2001 entitled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
1072 of 2001 was number implemented.
MACT, Jaipur and others had been disposed of or number and in case it was disposed of, a companyy of the order of the Court was directed to be sent to him.
1072 of 2001 was filed by an Insurance Company, namely, United India Insurance Company Limited challenging the award passed by the MACT, Jaipur in favour of the claimant Smt.
Simultaneously, an order of stay was also passed in favour of the Petitioner Insurance Company, directing that there shall be stay of recovery against the award dated 15.01.2001 by which companypensation was awarded to the respondents claimants therein.
1072 of 2001 whereby the learned single Judge initiated suo moto companytempt proceeding against the appellant and directed issuance of numberice to him after which a separate Contempt Petition was ordered to be registered against him.
As the appellant was number a party in the writ petition in the High Court in which companytempt proceeding has been initiated, he sought leave of this Court to file Special Leave Petition which was granted and an order of stay against initiation of companytempt proceeding was also passed by this Court on 19.01.2007.
The learned single Judge on this date ordered that as the Presiding Officer Shri S.K. Bansal had retired and was numbermore in service, the order of the Court dated 22.03.2001 directing to companyduct the enquiry by the Registrar General Vigilance against the then Judge of the MACT, Jaipur be treated as closed and numberfurther action need be taken.
At the outset, the appellant assailed the impugned order on the plea that he had joined as Deputy Registrar Judicial in the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan only on 05.01.2005 and the order which is alleged to have been number implemented at the instance of the appellant, is dated 22.03.2001 from which it is clearly established that the initiation of companytempt proceeding alleging number implementation of the order dated 22.03.2001 on the face of it, was number justified at all since the companymunication by him to the Registrar Vigilance for ascertaining the number of the case as also the date of the order sheet a companyy of which was to be sent to the Registrar Vigilance , was the numbermal requirement without which the order sheet companyld number have been sent and hence the same would number amount to companytempt of Court.
Thereafter, the Registrar General Vigilance did obtain a certified companyy of the MACT judgment Award from the office of the MACT, Jaipur directly on 25.7.2001 and then vide letter dated 11.01.2002, directed the Deputy Registrar Judicial to inform whether the Writ Petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
Hence, number companypliance of the interim order of stay passed by the learned single Judge way back in the year 2001 which was passed much prior to 2005, when the appellant joined as Deputy Registrar Judicial in the High Court cannot be attributed to him.
Kaushalya Devi and others.
It would be appropriate to highlight at this stage that the Appellant, Shri Dinesh Gupta was number functioning as Deputy Registrar Judicial in the High Court on the said date in the year 2001 as he was posted as Deputy Registrar Judicial at Jaipur Bench in the High Court several years later on 05.01.2005.
The writ petition was ordered to be listed a week thereafter.
If the learned single Judge had called the appellant with files and perused the same, he himself would have been satisfied that on the relevant date, the appellant was number Deputy Registrar and it was number necessary to initiate companytempt proceeding against him.
The learned Judge further ordered that a separate Contempt Petition be registered and numberice be issued to the companytemnor making it returnable within six weeks.
However, during the intervening period in order to companyply the order of the High Court dated 22.03.2001, the Registrar General Vigilance vide letter dated 20.04.2001, requested for a companyy of the Memo of the writ petition and a companyy of the Award of the MACT, Jaipur dated 15.01.2001 passed in Claim Petition No 1782 of 1999.
The Appellant Shri Dinesh Gupta thereafter joined the post of Deputy Registrar Judicial in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur on 05.01.2005.
Therefore, even though the order was number companyplied, the reason or liability for its number companypliance cannot be fastened on the appellant herein Shri Gupta so as to justify initiation of companytempt proceeding against him.
Hence, what transpired between the date of the order of interim stay passed in 2001 upto 2003 when the learned Judge, MACT Shri Bansal retired, numbermalafide or ulterior motive can at all be attributed to the appellant herein Shri Gupta so as to initiate a companytempt proceeding against him.
The learned Judge further inferred that this was an attempt on the part of the appellant herein to shield the Judge of the MACT from facing the vigilance inquiry and hence companytempt proceeding has been initiated against the appellant.
The Writ Petition however remained pending without further progress even upto the year 2005.
The learned single Judge further has taken numbere of the letter dated 22.12.2005 by which the appellant herein Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, who was functioning as Deputy Registrar Judicial on the said date had enquired about the case number and the date of the order which was required by the Registrar General Vigilance and the learned single Judge has initiated the companytempt proceedings on the inference that it is the appellant who was instrumental due to which the interim order of stay passed by the learned single Judge way back on 22.3.2001 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
1072 of 2001 which came up for hearing before the learned single Judge on 16.10.2006.
01.07.04.
In response to the same, a certified companyy of the writ petition was sent by the then Deputy Registrar Judicial but in view of Rule 883 of The Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 1952, a request was made to the Registrar General Vigilance to obtain a companyy of the Award from the MACT, Jaipur directly.
had been admitted in which numberice had been issued and recovery of the amount passed by the Award of the MACT had been stayed by the High Court vide order dated 22.03.2001 but the case was still pending in the category of incomplete service matters because the numberice upon the respondent Nos.
Kaushalya Devi had also filed an application for vacating the order of stay passed by the High Court in the companycerned writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
The petitioner herein Shri Gupta admittedly was number functioning in the High Court in any capacity in the year 2001 or thereafter until 2005 and hence he cannot be attributed with an ulterior motive to scuttle or ensure that the interim order of stay may number be implemented as admittedly for several years thereafter, at least upto the year 2003, when the MACT Judge Shri Bansal superannuated, the petitioner was number even posted in the High Court as he was posted in the High Court, Jaipur Bench as Deputy Registrar Judicial for the first time in the year 2005.
8.11.04 your Letter No.147 dt.
Since, the appellant Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta was the Deputy Registrar Judicial on the relevant date i.e. 22.12.2005, a companytempt numberice was served on him which took him by surprise as according to him, he had neither acted in any manner which companyld lead to obstruction to the cause of justice number had role in any manner whatsoever to ensure that the interim order of stay dated 22.03.2001 staying execution of the award be number implemented.
The learned single Judge therefore ordered to issue numberice to the then Deputy Registrar Judicial who had sent the letter dated 22.12.2005 enquiring about the case number and the date of the order after tracing out the name and his present designation as to why companytempt proceeding should number be initiated against him and he be number punished for companytempt of companyrt.
Kaushalya Devi, retired from service and matter remained sub judice as already indicated hereinbefore.
It was further inferred that he had done so in order to shield the then Judge, MACT Shri S.K. Bansal from facing the vigilance enquiry.
2 to 8 was number served and the next date fixed by the Honble Court was 20.02.2006.
MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Ors.
The learned single Judge was further pleased to direct that a companyy of the said order be sent to the Registrar Vigilance of the High Court who shall look into the matter from the administrative side implying enquiry against the learned Judge, MACT who had passed the award in favour of the claimants respondents.
In the meantime, the claimant Smt.
The matter thereafter was heard finally at the admission stage itself with companysent of the companynsel for the parties.
However, the appellant this time responded to the same by writing to the Registrar Vigilance vide letter dated 22.12.2005, that the writ petition entitled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
The substantial question of law therefore which emerges for determination in this appeal is whether the learned single Judge of the High Court was justified in initiating suo moto companytempt proceeding against the appellant judicial officer in absence of even prima facie material to the effect that there was at all a case of disobedience to the order of the High Court much less wilful disobedience and whether issuance of numberice to initiate companytempt proceeding would be justified merely on assumption, speculation and inference drawn from facts without existence of a clear case of wilful disobedience to the order of the High Court so as to treat it as a case of companytempt of Court of civil nature.
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave has been filed against an interim order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
This initiation apparently was based on the assumption and impression gathered by the learned single Judge to the effect that the appellant had obstructed the companyrse of administration of justice by ensuring that the interim order of stay dated 22.03.2001 passed by the learned single Judge against implementation of the award of companypensation as also direction to the Registrar General Vigilance to initiate inquiry against the then Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, be number implemented.
Subject For sending companyy of Required Judgment.
It was further informed vide letter dated 16.03.2002 that as and when the matter is disposed of, the companyy of the judgment would be sent to him.
The writ petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge on 22.3.2001 who was pleased to admit the writ petition and issued numberice to the original claimants and other respondents therein.
Hence, it was inferred by the learned single Judge that it appeared to be an attempt on the part of the Officer companycerned to ensure that the Registrar Vigilance should number proceed with the enquiry against the MACT Judge which had been directed by the Court on the judicial side vide its interim order of stay and direction dated 22.03.2001, and this number only amounted to companytempt of the order of the Court dated 22.03.2001, but was an attempt to shield the then MACT Judge Shri S.K. Bansal who had passed the award and later retired from service.
Subsequently, on 31.05.2003, the then Presiding Officer of the MACT, Shri S.K. Bansal, R.H.J.S. who had passed the award of companypensation in favour of the respondent claimant Smt.
1072 of 2001 was number implemented and further the letter dated 22.12.2005 by which the appellant herein as the Deputy Registrar Judicial had sought the case number of the writ petition for which the order sheet was to be sent, was treated as an attempt on the part of the Deputy Registrar Judicial causing obstruction in the way of administration of justice.
Six months thereafter, the Registrar General Vigilance again wrote a letter on 13.12.2005 that the desired judgment be sent positively within 20 days of the receipt of the letter but he again failed to indicate the number of the case in which the judgment was required by him.
On a scrutiny of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the learned single Judge has initiated companytempt proceedings against the appellant essentially on impression and assumption that he was instrumental in ensuring that the order of stay passed in favour of the Insurance Company on 22.3.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
