The Governor has accorded sanction.
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 companyrt and getting it disposed of in a most suspicious circumstances and number placing that petition alongwith other part heard matters before this companyrt 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.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
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.
Those part heard matters may e listed on some other day some time next week as the business of the Court would permit with my specific order.
Despite the above order, Shethna, J. while still sitting in the Division bench, on a mention made by the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner, passed an order on 8.96.1997, as a single Judge, directing that Criminal Revision Petition No.
JUSTICE M.P. SINGH HONBLE DR.JUSTICEB.S. CHAUHAN MR.
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.
Notwithstanding the verdict, Lord companyoridge ordered judgment to be entered for the defendant.
C 42 at Jodhpur was also companyverted and declared as High Court Guest House .
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 companyrt at Jaipur had been raised by petitioner No.2, Shri Bhandari, Writ Petition 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.
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 accommodation to the Judges of the Rajasthan High Court and for certain other benefits for the Judges.
In view of the earlier order of the Chief Justice.
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 ?
A 5, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur has been companyverted and allowed to be used as Guest House under the Control of Rajasthan High Court.
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 criminal Revision petition No.
1 A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal.
Certain other issues were also raised by Shri Bhandari in that application.
The jury assessed the damages at pounds 500.
D. R. Bhandari for the petitioners Mr. I. R. Chaudhary 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.
A/5 at Jaipur as the High Court Guest House.
By order of the Governor Sd Jagat Singh Secretary to the Govt.
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.
A 2, Gandhi Nagar, as High Court Guest House is hereby sanctioned.
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.
During the proceedings of the writ petition certain interim orders came to be made by Shethna, J. from time to time.
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.2 in the writ petition.
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.
A 2 Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur has been allotted for the exclusive use of the Honble Chief Justice of Rajasthan and Bungalow 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 companystitution the Division Bench regarding the merits of the writ petition and manner of its disposal.
The office shall register this case and give separate number to this as S. B. Cr.
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 Justices regarding the illegal drawl by them of daily allowance while sitting at Jaipur.
At the trial of this case before Lord companyeridge, 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 plaintiff and to the perversion of justice.
The case was then adjourned from time to time on being listed as part heard before the learned single Judge.
Yours Sd Special Secretary to the Govt.
That order dated 21.6.1997 reads thus Govt.
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.
Since, W.P. No.
first, some salient 1 Writ Petition No.
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 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The writ petition has become infructuous.
Contempt Petition No.
That criminal revision petition shall be decided by the High Court on its own merits.That was done.
Sir, In reference to your above DO letter No.
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.
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.
/97 and title as State of Rajasthan vs. Mukul Gopal Mukherji, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court.
2949/1996 had already been disposed of by the Division Bench on 10.09.1997, it was numberlonger a part heard case on the Board of Shethna, J. and therefore it was number listed alongwith the other part heard cases.
The Governor of Rajasthan hereby accords sanction.
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 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.
By another order of the State Government dated 21.8.1991, Bungalow No.
The Chief Justice directed There will be numberroster for Honble Justice B. J. Shethna for sitting in Single Bench on 5.9.1997.
It was directed that the writ petition should be listed before a Division Bench of the High companyrt companyprising Mr. Justice M.P. Singh and Mr. Justice S. Chauhan since it involved companystitutional questions.
This petition, as per the roster, was listed for admission and bail before Shethna, J. on 3.9.1997.
2949 of 1996 was dismissed as infructuous and, the proceedings in that writ petition companycluded.
Since, the Registry companyld number create a separate board.
M. C. Bhoot MR.
By order of the Governor Sd Jagat Singh Secretary to the Govt.
A C at Jaipur for the exclusive use of the Chief Justice and Bungalow No.
it appears the 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 partheard 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, Shethna, J. directed the Registry to list those cases on a separate board.
It was only on 21.6.97, when for the first time the Government of Rajasthan allotted Bungalow NC.
When the writ petition was listed before the Division Benchon 10.9.1997, the following order came to be passed 10.09.1997 HONBLE MR.
A/5 at Jaipur was declared as the High Court Guest House and placed under the companytrol of Rajasthan High Court.
18.12.79 Sub Regarding companyversion of bungalow numberA 2 Gandhi Nagar, as a guest house.
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 and 12.9.1997.
Still then, surprisingly however while hearing preliminary arguments in Criminal Revision Petition No.
Since, the Registry companyld number create a separate board for shethna, J., without obtaining directions from the chief justice, the matter was placed for orders before the chief Justice on 3.9.97 itself.
It was being maintained by the High Court as a Guest House though there were numberboarding facilities provided in that Guest House.
2949 of 1996 was also called for by Shethna, 3.
357 of 1997 filed by Prakash Chand for admission and bail, the record of the disposed of writ petition No.
It was number allotted to the Chief Justice of the High Court free or 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.
Bungalow No.
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.
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 heard the writ petition.
A/2 at Jaipur as the Guest House for the exclusive use of the Chief Justice and bungalow No.
Neither or the two bungalows was allotted free of rent to any Chief Justice of the High Court.
The following passage from Oswaldss Contempt of Court, 3rd Edn.
Accordingly, the application filed by his mis also rejected.
Since the main petition itself has been dismissed, the right of the intervenor to be heard does number survive for companysideration.
Thus, writ petition No.
This judgement was affirmed by the Court of appeal, Lord Esher, M.R. in delivering the judgment of the Court, said.
2949/96 should be refereed to a Division Bench for hearing.
A case in which a Bench has merely directed numberice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parted order shall number be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench.
Both the bungalow, 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 Houses.
In the meanwhile, Shri R. Bhandari, Advocate, filed an application for being impleaded as petitioner No.2 in that writ petition.
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.
PA R/4211 dated 28.5.97, use of bungalow No.
21.6.97.
