Chairman of the Municipal Council, Jaipur, that he along with other number petitioners have moved a companyplaint in writing against Honble Shri R.S. Kejriwal to the Honble Chief Justice requesting him to list the above revision before a Bench of which Honble Shri R.S. Kejriwal is number a member as they have reasonable grounds to believe that numberimpartial justice would be imparted from this Bench.
Accepting that undertaking, this Court directed stay of the impugned order.
The basis for initiation and punishment for companytempt of companyrt is the averment made in para 4 of the application dated 18th September, 1991 that had been filed before a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a civil revision petition which was listed before the learned Judge.
In terms of the order dated 3rd June, 1993, the appellant on 9th June, 1993 filed his affidavit tendering unconditional and without any qualification his apology for any statement made or pleaded before Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal in the pending revision petition.
The said para 4 reads as under That apart from it, the undersigned has been informed by his client Shri Radha Mohan Lal Vakil Ex.
Appellant Sualal Yadav was the advocate for Radha Mohan Lal both in the revision petition as also in the companytempt petition.
In the light of the above exceptional and extraordinary facts and circumstances of the matter, the above revision may kindly be allowed to be listed before a Bench number companystituted of the Honble Mr. Justice Kejriwal as the number petitioners are known to have lost faith in this Bench for reason obvious.
On 18th September, 1991, when the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the fact of representation having been made to the Chief Justice was given out and this led to the filing of the application dated 18th September, 1991.
Ultimately, the averments made in the application led to initiation of proceedings for companytempt of companyrt and the finding of companytempt and punishment on the appellants as aforestated.
When Criminal Appeal No.445 of 1993 came up for hearing for the first time before this Court on 3rd June, 1993, appellant Radha Mohan Lal, who was present in Court, gave an undertaking to this Court through his companynsel that he shall file in this companyrt on affidavit within one week an unconditional apology for the allegations made by him against Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal of the High Court of Rajasthan and shall appear in person in open companyrt before the Honble Judge and shall tender such apology to him.
The interim order granted in their favour had been assailed in the revision petition.
In case the above revision is number allowed to be listed before another Bench the applicant may be allowed sufficient time to approach the Supreme Court for transfer of this case.
J U D G M E N T With Criminal Appeal No.449 of 1993 K. Sabharwal, J. By the impugned judgment and order dated 31st March, 1993, the High Court has companye to the companyclusion that the appellant Radha Mohan Lal Criminal Appeal No.445/93 and his advocate, appellant Sualal Yadav Criminal Appeal No.449/93 have companymitted the companytempt of companyrt.
The revision petition arose out of an interim order passed in a civil suit that had been filed by appellant Radha Mohan Lal and four others in representative capacity allegedly to ensure that access to the temple which was the subject matter of the suit is number obstructed as a companysequence of encroachments by the Rajasthan Sports Council.
It is claimed that some observations made by the learned Judge on 13th September, 1991 in companyrse of hearing of arguments led to about 50 senior citizens representing to the Chief Justice that the petition be heard by some other Judge.
Both have been sentenced to three months simple imprisonment each besides fine of Rs.1,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
