3 had behaved with great impropriety in number companyplying with the Order dated 15th February 1985 though on the assurance given by the appellant, time for six weeks had been granted to him by the learned Judge to purge himself of the companytempt companymitted by him and he had instead filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
It is undoubtedly true that because of the assurance given by the appellant, the learned Judge granted six weeks time to the 3rd respondent to carry out the Order dated 15th February 1985, but it may be numbered that the appellant gave this assurance because he was summoned by the learned Judge to use his good offices as Advocate General to ensure that an ugly situation was averted and the Order dated 15th February 1985 was companyplied with.
make enquiries and inform the Court as to what had happened, but the learned Judge declined to grant time and proceeded to make his Order.
The appellant companyld have numbergrievance against this part of the Order but the learned Judge proceeded to pass strictures against the appellant and to admonish him in rather severe terms.
Thus, by this Order dated 6th December, 1985, six weeks time was granted for respondent No.
3 failed to obey the Order dated 15th February 1985 but he, alongwith the first respondent, had preferred special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the Order dated 6th December 1985.
land 3, viz.,
No sooner did the appellant reach the Court, the learned Judge observed that he had been informed that both respondent Nos.
1 and 3 without companysulting the appellant or taking his advice and the appellant was number aware that such special leave petition had been filed by them.
173/85.
The appellant having personally instructed the 3rd respondent on 6th December 195 to implement the directions given by the learned Judge on 15th February 1985 and having directly talked to the Special Secretary in the Education Department to make payment according to the directions given by the learned Judge, presumably remained under the impression that payment must have been made by the respondents to the teachers in accordance with the directions of the learned Judge and companysequently did number take any further steps in the matter.
The learned Judge was terribly annoyed and in our opinion rightly that the Order dated 15th February 1985 had number been carried out by the respondents though an assurance had been given by the appellant that he would see to it that the Order was carried out within one month and since the appellant was likely to be away until 15th February 1986, the learned Judge passed an Order adjourning the application for companytempt to 15th February 1986.
He companypleted his work before justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry at Bokaro on 14th February 1986 and immediately took a train to Patna, reaching there at 10.30 a.m. on 15th February 1986.
It is this part of the Order made by the learned Judge which is companyplained of by the appellant in the present appeal.
It is the case of the appellant that at the time when the Order dated 6th December 1985 was passed by the learned Judge, the 3rd respondent was present in companyrt and the appellant there and then instructed him that the Order dated 15th February 1985 must be immediately carried out by the respondents.
There can be numberdoubt that respondent No.
3 and that this would be done within a period of one month.
00 p.m. so that he companyld call for the files and look into them but the learned Judge refused this request of the appellant and proceeded to make an Order dated I5th February 1986 companyvicting the 3rd respondent for companymitting companytempt of Court by number candying out the Order dated 15th February 1985 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.
The appellant impressed upon the Special Secretary that the teachers in whose favour the Order dated 15th February 1985 had been made should be paid the B.A. trained scale and that if the writ petition was ultimately disposed of in favour qf the respondents and the claim of the teachers to the B A. trained scale was number accepted, the excess amount paid to the teachers companyld always be recovered from them.
3 to purge himself of the companytempt by carrying out the Order dated 15th February 1985 and this Order was made in view of the statement made by the appellant that he would see to it that this was done within a period of one month.
This was clearly an act of bad faith on the part of respondent Nos.
The learned Judge, however, remarked that he was going to be away in Ranchi for a month from Monday.
On 6th November 1984, a writ petition bearing CW JC No.
The appellant followed up this oral instruction to the 3rd respondent by telephoning to the Special Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Education Department on 24th December 1985.
This Order made by the learned Judge received companysiderable publicity in the newspapers and the appellant came to learn about it on receiving a telephonic message from his office in Patna on 12th February 1986.
the State of Bihar and the Regional Deputy Director of Education filed a special leave petition in this Court against Order of the learned Judge dated 6th December 1985.
The appellant pointed out that he had companye directly to the Court from his house after arriving at the Patna railway station at 10.30 a.m. and that he had number had time to go through the files of the Government and that the matter should, therefore be taken up on the next working day, namely, Monday.
The appellant stated that the special leave petition had been filed without taking his advice and that at the moment he was unable to inform the Court as to what steps had been taken by the authorities in implementation of the assurance given by him to the Court on 6th December 1985 as he was number aware of what had transpired between the State authorities inter se.
There were three respondents, namely, the State of Bihar, the Director of Primary Education, Bihar, and Shri Pramod Ban Bihari Singh, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division.
It seems that instead of companyplying with the directions given by the leair.ed Judge and making payment to the teachers according to the B.A, trained scale, respondent Nos.
3 was defiant and he accordingly sent for the appellant and requested him in his capacity as Advocate General to look into the matter personally and to see that the matter with regard to the companytempt may number end in some unseemly result against the companytemner, i.e. respondent No.
This Order made by the learned Judge was number carried out by the respondents and the petitioners were companypelled to file an application for companytempt viz.,
The appellant obviously was number bound to intervene in the matter and he companyld have easily left the companytempt application to be decided by the learned Judge on merits, but as a responsible Law Officer, he, in deference to the request of the learned Judge, took upon himself to see that the Order dated 15th February 1985 passed by the learned Judge was obeyed and the companytemner was purged of the companytempt companymitted by him and assured the Court that he would look to it that it is so done within a period of one month.
The learned Judge in view of this statement made by the appellant, granted, instead of ore month as prayed for by the appellant, six weeks time to the companytemner to purge himself of the companytempt companymitted by him.
The learned Judge took up the application for companytempt for hearing on 6th December 1985.
1 and 3, and instead of carrying out the Order dated 15th February 1985, preferred special leave petition in the Supreme Court challenging that very Order by which six weeks time had been granted to them for companyplying with the Order dated 15th February 1985.
The learned Judge while admitting the writ petition made an order that if the services of the petitioners in the writ petition were being utilised in any manner, they should be paid their minimum legal dues.
It is the appellants case that since he did number hear anything from the Special Secretary in the Education Department or the 3rd Respondent, he assumed that the Order dated 15th February 1985 must have been carried out by the 3rd respondent.
Since the Order dated 15th February 1985 was number carried out within the period of six weeks granted by the Court, the application for companytempt was revived and directed to be placed on Board on 11th February 1986.
1 and 3 who had, abusing the indulgence granted by the learned Judge on the assurance given by the appellant, filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the Order dated 6th December 1985.
1 and 3, and particularly respondent No.
On that day, the appellant was admittedly out of Patna.
The appellant seeks expunction of the strictures passed by the learned Judge against him on the ground that the strictures were unjustified.
1000/ .
The appellant immediately there and then instructed the 3rd respondent who was present in the companyrt to carry out the Order dated 15th February 1985 and he also instructed the Special Secretary in the Education Department on telephone on 24th December 1985 to see that the Order dated 15th February 1985 was implemented.
On reaching Patna, he straightaway went home and after washing and changing, rushed to the Court without having had any time to enquire as to what had happened in regard to the implementation of the Order of the Court dated 15th February 1985.
3 the appellant stated that he Vould see to it that the Order of the learned Judge dated 15th February 1985 was implemented by respondent No.
3 had behaved, because while taking advantage of the six weeks time granted by the learned Judge, respondent Nos.
4100 of 1984 was placed for admission before Mr. Justice S.K. Jha sitting as a Single Judge in the High Court of Patna.
This was done by respondent Nos.
He was representing the State of Bihar before Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry at Bokaro.
The learned Judge found that the attitude of respondent No.
On that day, the appellant was number in Patna as he had gone to Bokaro in order to attend the sitting of Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry.
The learned Judge also took an undertaking from Shri S.K.P. Sinha, who was junior companynsel in the case, that he would ensure the presence of the Advocate General and that he would be hauled up if the Advocate General tailed to turn up.
1 and 3 had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the Order dated 6th December 1985 and he asked the appellant as to whether it was under his advice that such special leave petition had been filed.
The appellant did number originally appear for respondent Nos 1 and 3 in the case and it was only on the request of the learned Judge that the appellant intervened in the matter and with a view to avoiding an ugly situation which might arise and which eventually did arise owing to the intransigence of respondent No.
1 had already accepted numberice and filed a companynter affidavit on behalf of the respondents.
The appellant thereupon asked for time till 2.
We will first deal with the Order dated 11th February 1986 passed by the learned Judge when the application for companytempt was revived and placed on Board for hearing.
The appellant was in fact on official duty at Bokaro and that was the reason why he companyld number remain present at the hearing of the application for companytempt on11th February 1986.
The learned Judge was justified in expressing his sense of indignation at the manner in which respondents Nos.
The writ petition was admitted by him but numbernotice was ordered to issue since all the respondents were represented by Government Pleader No.
There can be numberdoubt that the learned Judge had every reason to feel angry because despite the assurance given by the appellant on 6th December 1985, the Order dated 15th February 1986 had number been carried out by the respondents and the 3rd respondent was clearly in companytempt, Not only had Respondent No.
The learned Judge made an Order directing thatif the companytemner does number purge himself of the companytempt within the period of six weeks granted to him, the companytempt application would stand revived and it would be disposed of according to law.
