N Criminal Appeal No 349 of 1974
From the Judgment and order dated 24 4 1974 of the Patna High Court in original Crl
No 773
Lal Narayan Sinha Attorney General U P Singh B P Singh and section N Jha for the Appellant
Sukumar Ghosh for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
The Advocate General of Bihar is the appellant in this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempts of Courts Act 1971
Respondent No 1 Ms Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries represented by respondent No 2 Om Prakash Agrawal were the highest bides at an auction held by the Divisional Forest officer Garhwa South of four forest coupes in the State of Bihar
Under the terms of the agreements the respondents were required to deposit 25 of each of the four bids as security
The respondents were however able to make the deposit in respect of one coupe only and not in respect of the other three coupes
The respondents requested for time
Thereafter there was a long course of correspondence with which we are not now concerned
Finally on January 28 1970 the Conservator of Forests determined the agreements
On February 28 1970 respondent No 1 served a notice on the Divisional Forest officer 1175 Garhwa South intimating him that they had filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Calcutta High Court and that section C Deb J had been pleased to issue a rule nisi and also an injunction restraining the Govt
of Bihar and the officials of the Forest Department of the Govt
of Bihar from giving effect to the proceedings by which the leases were determined and further directing them to allow Ms Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries to carry on the work of cutting and felling of trees and removing the material in the said forest coupes
Alleging that the officers of the Forest Department of the Govt
of Bihar had violated the order of injunction granted against them the respondents filed an application to commit the Officers for Contempt of Court and in that application they prayed for and obtained an interim order directing the Officers not to interfere in any way with the activities of the respondents in removing the produce of the Khair trees
The State of Bihar preferred an appeal to a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and on September 291970 the Division Bench passed an order allowing the appeal and directing the respondents to furnish security in a sum of Rs 155000 if they desired to remove the forest produce
Otherwise they were restrained from selling the trees and extracting the produce
The respondents offered certain property as security but that was rejected by the Registrar of the Calcutta High Court as the title was found to be defective
At this stage on January 8 1971 the State of Bihar filed money suit No 3 of 1971 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palamau to recover a sum of Rs 193225 as damages
The State of Bihar also filed an application under order 38 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure and obtained an order of attachment of the Kath  manufactured by the respondents alongwith utensils equipment etc
The respondents were directed to furnish security in a sum of Rs 2 lakhs and asked to show cause why the interim attachment should not be made absolute
The attachment was effected on January 10 1971
The respondents appeared before the learned Subordinate Judge and requested that the reduced the amount of security from Rs 2 lakhs to Rs 75000
The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the prayer of the respondents and reduced the amount of security from Rs 2 lakhs to Rs 75000
The State of Bihar preferred an appeal to the Patna High Court and an interim order was made by the High Court staying the operation of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge but continuing the attachment
On March 29 1971 after hearing both the parties the Patna High Court made an order directing the respondents to furnish security of immovable property in a sum of Rs 75000 and to deposit cash or furnish bank guarantee in a sum of Rs 50000
It was directed that 1176 on such security being furnished the interim attachment would cease and the respondents would be allowed to remove the stock utensils and equipment
Without complying with the order of the Patna High Court Respondent No1 then moved the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on April 21 1971 and obtained an order restraining the State of Bihar from continuing the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Palamau and further directing the State to take steps to get the attachment vacated if security was furnished by the respondents as directed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
The State of Bihar filed an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge and the operation of the order was stayed by an order of January 10 1972 of the Division Bench
It was directed that the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Palamau should proceed
In the meanwhile on July 30 1971 Respondent No 1 moved another application before the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court offering to deposit Rs 60000 in cash and requesting that on such deposit being made they might be allowed to remove the stock
This application was allowed on July 30 1971 by the learned Single Judge and the amount was directed to be deposited with the counsel for the State of Bihar
The order was later on modified on December 16 1972 and the amount was directed to be deposited with the Registrar of the High Court
On November 20 1972 the State of Bihar filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Palamau complaining that the respondents had not furnished security as directed by the Patna High Court and as the attached stock was deteriorating it might be sold by auction
Before anything further could be done Respondent No 1 filed a petition on 14th December 1972 and obtained an order from the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on December 18 1972 staying the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Palamau until the attached goods were released in compliance with the orders dated July 30 1971 and February 16 1972
The State of Bihar preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge and on January 22 1973 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the proceedings in the Court of Subordinate Judge Palamau to go on
Vexed by the manner in which the 1st Respondent was filing repeated applications and procuring orders from a learned Single Judge 1177 of the High Court necessitating the filing of as many appeals to the Division Bench the State of Bihar filed an application for committing the Respondents for Contempt of Court alleging that by their conduct the respondents were obstructing the administration of justice and interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings
The Patna High Court held that the respondents  conduct was most unscrupulous one that there was gross abuse of the process of the Court which could in certain circumstances amount to contempt of Court
The High Court however dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of one year prescribed by section 20 of the 
The High Court held on a reading of the Contempt application that the material allegation in regard to the contempt committed by the respondents was that relating to the filing of the application dated April 7 1971 before the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court to circumvent and nullify the order dated March 29 1971 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court
As the contempt application was filed more than a year later it was time barred
In regard to the allegation relating to the filing of the petition dated December 14 1972 the High Court observed that there was no specific allegation that any Contempt of Court was committed by the filing of this application
We may also mention that the respondents tendered an unconditional apology to the High Court of Bihar
The question of accepting the apology was not considered as the application was found to be beyond time
The Advocate General of Bihar has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Patna High Court
Before we consider the merits of the appeal we may mention here that the learned Single Judge who made the several orders in favour of the respondents was himself compelled in a later order dated August 13 1973 to state that the respondents had suppressed material facts and misled him on various occasions and obtained orders from him
Section 2c of the defines Criminal contempt as follows c Criminal Contempt  means the publication whether by words spoken or written or any signs or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which i scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court or ii prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding or 1178 iii Interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner
While we are conscious that every abuse of the process of the Court may not necessarily amount to Contempt of Court abuse of the process of the Court calculated to hamper the due course of a judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice we must say is a contempt of Court
It may be that certain minor abuses of the process of the Court may be suitably dealt with as between the parties by striking out pleadings under the provisions of order 6 Rule 16 or in some other manner
But on the other hand it may be necessary to punish as a contempt a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice
The publice have an interest an abiding and a real interest and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice because unless justice is so administered there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing
The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and so it is entrusted with the power to commit for Contempt of Court not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression Contempt of Court may seem to suggest but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented prejudiced obstructed or interfered with
It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage1 The law should not be seen to sit by limply while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope2 In Halsbury s Laws of England 4th Edn Vol 9 paragraph 38 there is a brief discussion of when abuse of the process of the Court may be a punishable contempt
It is said 38
Abuse of process in general
The Court has power to punish as contempt any misuse of the court s process
Thus the forging or altering off court documents and other deceits of like kind are punishable as serious contempts
Similarly deceiving the court or the court s officers by deliberately suppressing a fact or giving false facts may be a punishable contempt
1179 Certain acts of a lesser nature may also constitute an abuse of process as for instance initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona fides or which are frivolous vexatious or oppressive
In such cases the court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting the taking of further proceedings without leave
Where the court by exercising its statutory powers its powers under rules of court or its inherent jurisdiction can give an adequate remedy it will not in general punish the abuse as a contempt of court
On the other hand where an irregularity or misuse of process amounts to an offence against justice extending its influence beyond the parties to the action it may be punished as a contempt
In the present case the respondents began the game  by filing an application under article 226 of the Constitution in the Calcutta High Court whereas in the normal course one would expect such as application to be filed in the Patna High Court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the dispute was situate
For some mysterious reasons which nobody has been able to explain to us the writ application was filed in the Calcutta High Court
A justifiable prima facie inference from this circumstance may be that the application was not bona fide but intended to harass and oppress the opposite parties
We do not want to say anything more about this aspect of the case as we are told that this is a failing of the respondents which they shared with several others
Perhaps as we had occasion to remark during the course of the hearing some parties are unable to reconcile themselves to the fact that the Calcutta High Court has long since ceased to have jurisdiction over the area comprising the State of Bihar which it had several decades ago
The game  proceeded further
Application after application was filed before the learned Single Judge everyone of them designed to circumvent defeat or nullify the effect of the orders of the Division Benches of the Calcutta High Court and the Patna High Court
The order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing the respondents to furnish security in a sum of Rs 155000 was never complied with
The order of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court directing the respondents to furnish security of immovable property in a sum of Rs 75000 and to deposit cash or furnish bank guarantee in a sum of Rs 50000 was also never complied with
1180 Instead an order was obtained from the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court restraining the State of Bihar from continuing the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Palamau
When this order was set aside by the Division Bench an attempt was made to circumvent all earlier orders by obtaining an order from the Single Judge that they may be allowed to deposit Rs 60000 in cash and permitted to remove the stock from the forest coupes
When the State of Bihar moved the learned Subordinate Judge Palamau for a direction to auction the attached stock the respondents moved an application on December 14 1972 and obtained an order from the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court staying the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Palamau
In considering the question whether the filing of the application dated December 14 1972 amount to a Contempt of Court the Court must take into account the whole course of the continuing contumacious conduct of the respondents from the beginning of the game
Clearly not a single application made to the Single Judge was bona fide
Every application was a daring raid  on the Court and each was an abuse of the process of the Court
The application dated December 14 1972 praying that the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge should be stayed was made despite the fact that earlier on January 10 1972 the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had expressly permitted the proceedings in the money suit to go on
The application of the respondents clearly showed that they were intent upon obstructing the due course of the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Palamau and to obstruct the administration of justice by abusing the process of the Court
The High Court expressed the view that there was no specific allegation that any contempt of Court had been committed by the filing of the application dated December 14 1972
We are unable to agree with the view of the High Court
Paragraph 29 of the application to commit the respondents for Contempt expressly refers to the application dated December 14 1972 and paragraph 31 states that all the facts and circumstances enumerated in the petition established that the respondents were obstructing and interfering with the due course and administration of justice
It was not necessary that every allegation made should be followed then and there by the statement that the allegation established a Contempt of Court
We are satisfied that the filing of the application dated December 14 1972 was an abuse of the process of the Court calculated to obstruct 1181 the due course of a judicial proceeding and the administration of justice and was therefore a Criminal Contempt of Court
The respondents had expressed an unconditional apology to the Patna High Court but we are convinced that the conduct of the respondents is so reprehensible as to warrant condemnation by the imposition of a sentence
We accordingly allow the appeal and sentence each of the respondents to pay a fine of Rs 500  in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks
VDK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondents were the successful bidders at an auction of forest coupes in the State of Bihar
As they defaulted in making the security deposit in respect of three coupes the agreements with them were determined by the Conservator of Forests
The respondents thereupon filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court instead of in the Patna High Court and followed it up with several applications one after another both in the Calcutta and Patna High Courts towards the forest department from preventing unauthorised removal of forest produce by the respondents
Vexed by the manner in which the respondent was filing repeated applications and procuring orders of a learned single judge of the High Court necessitating the filing of as many appeals to the Division Bench the State of Bihar moved an application for committing the respondents for contempt of court alleging that by their conduct the respondents were obstructing the administration of justice and interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings
The Patna High Court held that the respondent s conduct was most unscrupulous and that there was gross abuse of the process of the Court which could in certain circumstances amount to contempt of Court
However the High Court dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of one year prescribed by section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act
The High Court held on a reading of the contempt application that the material allegation in regard to the contempt committed by the respondents was that relating to the filing of the application dated April 7 1971 before the single judge of the Calcutta High Court to circumvent and nullify the order dated March 29 1971 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court
As the contempt application dated 18 7 73 in OCM 773 was filed more than a year later it was timeshared
In regard to the allegation relating to the filing of the petition dated December 14 1972 the High Court observed that there was no specific allegation that any contempt of court was committed by the filing of this application
Though the respondents tendered an unconditional apology its acceptance was not considered as the application was found to be beyond time
Hence the appeal under section 19 of the 
Allowing the State appeal the Court  HELD 1
Every abuse of process of the court may not necessarily amount to contempt of Court
Abuse of process of the Court calculated to hamper the due course of a judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice is a contempt of Court
1178A B 2
It may be that certain minor abuses of the process of the court may be suitably dealt with as between the parties by striking out pleadings under the 1173 provisions of order 6 Rule 16 CPC or in some other manner
But on the other hand it may be necessary to punish as a contempt a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of Justice
1178B C 3
The public have an interest an abiding and a real interest and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice because unless justice is so administered there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing
The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the administration of justice and so it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression Contempt of Court may seem to suggest but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that administration of justice shall not be prevented prejudiced obstructed or interfered with
1178C E Offutt vs USp11 quoted with approval
It is not necessary that every allegation made should be followed then and there by the statement that the allegation established a contempt of Court Paragraph 29 of the application to commit the respondents for Contempt expressly referred to the application dated December 14 1972 and paragraph 31 state that all the facts and circumstances enumerated in the petition established that the respondents were obstructing and interfering with the due course of administration of justice
1180F H In the instant case a the respondents began the game by filing an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Calcutta High Court whereas in the normal course one would expect such an application to be filed in the Patna High Court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of dispute was situate
A justifiable prima facie inference from this circumstance may be that the application was not bonafide but intended to harass and oppress the opposite party
1179C E b Thereafter application after application was filed before the learned single Judge everyone of them designed to circumvent defect or nullify the effect of the orders of the Division Benches of the Calcutta High Court and Patna High Court
The order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing the respondents to furnish security in a sum of Rs 155000 was never complied with
The order of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court directing the respondents to furnish security of immovable property in a sum of Rs 75000 and to deposit in cash or furnish bank guarantee in a sum of Rs 50000 was also never complied with
Instead an order was obtained from the single Judge of the Calcutta High Court restraining the State of Bihar from continuing the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Palamau
When this order was set aside by the Division Bench an attempt was made to circumvent all earlier orders by obtaining an order of the single Judge that they may be allowed to deposit a sum of Rs 60000 in cash and permitted to remove the stock from the forest Coupes
When the State of Bihar moved the learned Subordinate Judge Palamau for a direction to auction the attached stock the respondents moved an application on December 14 1972 and obtained an order from the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court staying the proceedings in the 1174 money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Palamau
In considering the question whether the filing of the application dated December 14 1972 amounts to a Contempt of Court the Court must take into account the whole course of the continuing contumacious conduct of the respondents from the beginning of the game 
Clearly not a single application made to the Single Judge was bonafide
Every application was a daring raid  on the Court and each was an abuse of the process of the Court
The application dated December 14 1972 praying that the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge should be stayed was made despite the fact that earlier on January 10 1972 the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had expressly permitted the proceedings in the money suit to go on
The application of the respondents clearly showed that they were intent upon obstructing the due course of the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Palamau and to obstruct the administration of justice by abusing the process of the Court
1179GH 1180A E c The application dated December 14 1972 was an abuse of process of the Court calculated to obstruct the due course of a judicial proceeding and the administration of justice and was therefore a criminal contempt of Court 1180H 1181A d though the respondents had expressed an unconditional apology to the Patna High Court the conduct of the respondents is so reprehensible as to warrant condemnation by the imposition of a sentence
1181A