By order of the Governor sd Jagat Singh Secretary to the Govt.
This petition, as per the roster, was listed for admission and bail before Shethna, J. on 3.9.1997.
While the judicial propriety, validity and justification for making insinuations against the Chief Justice of the High Court, casting aspersions on the learned Judges companystituting the Division Bench and making companyments and allegations against some of the former Chief Justices of that companyrt including the present Chief Justice of India, has been squarely put in issue by the state of Rajasthan in this appeal by special leave, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court respondent No.2 has called in question the numberice directed to be issued to him to show cause why companytempt proceedings be number initiated against him.
A 5, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur has been companyverted and allowed to be used as Guest House under the Control of Rajasthan High Court.
It was being maintained by the High Court as a Guest House though there were numberboarding facilities provided in that Guest House.
Thus, writ petition No.2949 of 1996 was dismissed as infructuous and,.
In view of the earlier order of the Chief Justice dated 3.9.97 supra the Registry companyld number act on the directions of Shethna, J. and therefore the Registry once again sought directions of the Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice, it appears accommodated Shethna, J. and directed that the criminal revision petition and other part heard cases be listed before him on a separate board.
Yours sd Special Secretary to the Govt.
JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN Mr. M.C. Bhoot Mr. D.R. Bhandari for the petitioners Mr. I R. Choudhary Mr. L.S. Udawat for the respondents Mr. R.P. Dave Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned companynsel for the petitioners, states that the relief sought for, in the writ petition, do number survive for companysideration number.
1993 Reprint in this behalf is apposite An action will number lie against a Judge of a Court of Record for a wrongful companymitment in the exercise of his judicial duties, any more than for an erroneous judgment s .
By an administrative order, the Chief Justice directed, on 8.9.97, that the application filed by the Additional Advocate General be put up for orders on the next day at 10.30 A.M. A judicial order then came to be made on 9.9.1997 by the Chief Justice, in presence of all the parties to the writ petition.
A/2 at Jaipur as the Guest House for the exclusive use of the Chief Justice and bungalow No.
The Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
it was number allotted to the Chief Justice of the High Court free of rent number was it allotted exclusively for the use of the Chief Justice of that High Court as a Guest House till 1997 when that bungalow was allotted for the exclusive use of the Chief Justice and by a subsequent order that Bungalow at Jaipur was declared as a Guest House for the exclusive use of the chief Justice.
2949/96 in the impugned order, are illegal, misconceived and without jurisdiction.
The jury assessed the damages at pounds 500.
THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand Honble Mr.Justice M.K.Mukherjee Honble Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami Ashok H.Desai, Attorney General for India, Manoj K. Das, Srilok Nath Rath, Nikhilesh Ramachandran, Ms.Rina Bagga and Aruneshwar Gupta, Advs.
That was done.
That order dated 21.6.1997 reads thus Govt.
Since, W.P. No.
Where a criminal revision has been admitted on the question of severity of the sentence only, it shall ordinarily be heard by the Bench admitting it.
Those part heard matters may be listed on some other day some time next week as the business of the Court would permit with my specific order.
But the Divisional Court refused to strike out as disclosing numbercause of action a statement of claim in an action for malicious prosecution brought against certain Judges of the Supreme Court of Trinidad for having as it was alleged of their own motion, and as it was alleged of their own motion, and without any evidence, caused the plaintiff to be prosecuted and companymitted to prison for an alleged companytempt of the Supreme Court in forwarding to the Governor of the Colony for transmission to the Queen in Council a petition of appeal companyplaining of the oppressive companyduct of the defendant as Judges t .
This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
the proceedings in that writ petition companycluded.
The order dated 21.6.97 was amended on 1.8.97 in the following manner In companytinuation of the Order of this Office even number dated 21.6.97, the Bungalow No.
On 8.9.1997, the Additional Advocate General for the state of Rajasthan moved an application under Rule 55 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan hereinafter the Rules with the prayer that since challenge to the legality and validity of the companystitution of a Bench of the High Court at Jaipur had been raised by petitioner No.2 Shri Bhandari, Writ Petition No.2949/96 should be referred to a Division Bench for hearing.
Sir, In reference to your above DO letter No.
The case was then adjourned from time to time on being listed as part heard before the learned single Judge.
A/5 at Jaipur as the high Court Guest House.
It was directed that the writ petition should be listed before a Division Bench of the High Court companyprising Mr. Justice M.P. Singh and Mr. Justice S. Chauhan since it involved companystitutional questions.
The same are quashed and are hereby directed to be expunged from the record.
2949/1996 had already been disposed of by the Division Bench on 10.9.1997, it was numberlonger a part heard case on the Board of Shethna, J. and thereof it was number listed alongwith the other part heard cases, Still the, surprisingly however while hearing preliminary arguments in Criminal Revision Petition No.
By order of the Governor sd/ JAGAT SINGH Secretary to the Govt.
2949 of 1996 was filed, as a Public Interest Litigation, on 9.9.1996 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur by an Advocate of that companyrt, inter alia seeking directions to provide suitable accomodation to the Judges of the Rajasthan High Court and for certain other benefits for the Judges.
ANAND.
2949/96, heard in part by Shethna, J., for its disposal in accordance with law to a Division Bench be issued by the learned single Judge?
When the writ petition was listed before the Division Bench on 10.9.1997, the following order came to be passed 10.09.1997 HONBLE MR.
That criminal revision petition shall be decided by the High Court on its own merits.PA R/4211 dated 28.5.97, use of bungalow No.
A/5 at Jaipur was declared as the High Court Guest House and placed under the companytrol of Rajasthan High Court.
First, some salient facts Writ Petition No.
Did Shethna, J. have any judicial or administrative authority to send for the record of a writ petition which had already been disposed of by a Division Bench that too while hearing a wholly unconnected criminal revision petition and pass companyments and make aspersions against the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Judges companystituting the Division bench regarding the merits of the writ petition and manner of its disposal.
357 of 1997 filed by Prakash Chand for admission and bail, the record of the disposed of writ petition No.
Both the bungalows, A/2 at Jaipur and C 42 at Jodhpur, were placed at the disposal of the High Court of Rajasthan for their use as High Court Guest Court of Rajasthan for their use as High Court Guest Houses.
A Criminal Revision Petition No.357 of 1997 was filed by one Prakash Chand, respondent No.1, herein challenging his companyviction and sentence for an offence under Section 304 A IPC.
1 A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal.
with him for the Respondent No.2 J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered DR.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
2949 of 1996 was also called for by shethna, J. and in a detailed order, companyments and observations were made regarding and unrelated to that writ petition and an exception was taken to its disposal by the division Bench.
A 2 Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur has been allotted for the exclusive use of the Honble Chief Justice of Rajasthan and Bungalow No.
A 2, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur is hereby companyverted for the exclusive use of Honble Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court as Guest House w.e.f 21.06.97.
A c at Jaipur for the Exclusive use of the Chief Justice and Bungalow No.
Caustic companyments, and unjustified allegations in intemperate language were made number only against the Chief Justice for transferring that writ petition from his board to the Division Bench but also against the learned Judges companystituting the Division Bench which head the writ petition.
357/97 alongwith other part heard cases should be listed before him on a Separate board on 9.9.97, knowing fully well that on that date also he was to companytinue to sit in the Division Bench and that numbercases companyld be listed before him without appropriate directions of the Chief Justice.
He inter alia challenged the legality and validity of the companystitution of a Bench of the High Court at Jaipur as also the order of the State Government declaring bungalow No.
The following passage from Oswalds Contempt of Court, 3rd Edn.
Since the main petition itself has been dismissed, the right of the intervenor to be heard does number survive for companysideration.
In the meanwhile, Shri R. Bhandari, Advocate, filed an application for being impleaded as petitioner No.2 in that writ petition.
F 116 G.A./11/78 Jaipur Dt.
The Chief Justice directed There will be numberroster for Honble Justice B.J.Shethna for sitting in Single Bench on 5.9.1997.
During the proceedings of the writ petition certain interim orders came to be made by Shethna, J. from time to time.
Chief Justice of the High Court has been provided with a rent free official residence only at Jodhpur under Rules even though providing of an official bungalow to the Chief Justice at Jaipur would also have been in order since by the very nature of his office, the Chief Justice companyld be required to sit at Jaipur also both for administrative as well as judicial work, depending upon the exigencies of the situation.
Neither of the two bungalows was allotted free of rent to any Chief Justice of the High Court.
Therefore, office is directed to issue numberice against Shri Mukul Gopal Mukherji, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to show cause as to why the companytempt proceedings should number be initiated against him for companymitting criminal companytempt under the companytempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Despite the above order Shethna, J. while still sitting in the Division Bench, on mention made by the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner, passed an order on 8.9.1997, as a single Judge, directing that Criminal Revision Petition No.
It was only on 21.6.97, when for the first time the Government of Rajasthan allotted Bungalow No.
Lord Coleridge ordered judgment to be entered for the defendant.
Accordingly, the application filed by him is also rejected.
A case in which a Bench has merely directed numberice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall number be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench.
JUSTICE M.P. SINGH HONBLE DR.
While making those observations that Shethna, J. took exception to the manner in which the writ petition was transferred to the Division Bench by the Chief Justice and opined that by doing so, the Chief Justice had prima facie companymitted criminal companytempt of companyrt and companycluded Thus, the act of Shri Mukul Gopal Mukherji, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court in withdrawing the part heard writ petition from this Court and getting it disposed of in a most suspicious circumstances and number placing that petition alongwith other part heard matters before this Court on 5.9.97 and 9.9.97 as per my earlier order dated 3.9.97 and 8.8.97 prima facie companystitute a criminal companytempt.
A/2 at Jaipur was declared as High Court Guest House by the Government of Rajasthan as early as in 1979 and placed under the companytrol of the Rajasthan High Court.
On 29.4.1997 Shethna, J. directed the writ petition to be treated as part heard at the request of learned companynsel for the parties.
In the companyrse of the order companyments were made number only against the Chief Justice and the Judges companystituting the Division Bench but also against some of the former Chief Justice regarding the illegal drawal by them of daily allowance while sitting at Jaipur.
The Governor has accorded sanction.
Bungalow No.
The office shall register this case and give separate number to this as S.B. Cr.
Contempt Petition No/97 and title as State of Rajasthan vs. Mukul Gopal Mukherji, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court.
In the meantime, the roster was changed and Shethna, J. was required to sit in a Division Bench instead of sitting singly between 4.9.1997.
with him for the appellant R. Andhayarujina, Solicitor General of India, Subrat Birla and K.L.Janjani, Advs.
Shethna, J. directed the Registry to list those cases on a separate board.
It appears that preliminary hearing of the petition did number companyclude on that date and the learned Judge directed that the revision petition be listed before him alongwith other part heard cases on 5.9.1997, even though as per the change of the roster, he companyld number take up single bench matters on 5.9.97, since he was to sit in a Division Bench on that date.
C 42 at Jodhpur was also companyverted and declared as High Court Guest House.,
Since, the Registry companyld number create a separate board for Shethna, J., without obtaining directions from the Chief Justice, the matt was placed for orders before the Chief Justice on 3.9.97 itself.
The writ petition has become infructuous.
18.12.79 Sub Regarding companyversion of bungalow numberA 2 Gandhi Nagar, as a guest house.
At the trial of this case before Lord Coleridge, C.J. the jury found as regards one of the defendants that he had overstrained his judicial powers, and had acted in the administration of justice oppressively and maliciously to the prejudice of the palintiff and to the perversion of justice.
Notwithstanding the verdict.
By another order of the State Government dated 21.8.1991, Bungalow No.
Over ruling the objections raised by the respondent therein inter alia, to the effect that the application of Shri Bhandari would widen the scope of the writ petition, the application of Shri Bhandari was allowed by Shethna, J. on 29.7.1997 and he was impleaded as petitioner No.3 in the writ petition.
Certain other issues were also raised by Shri Bhandari in that application.
hold that all observations, companyments, insinuations, allegations and orders made by the learned Judge in companynection with and relating to the disposed of Writ Petition No.
J. Leave granted.
The Governor of Rajasthan hereby accords sanction.
