CWP No.6318 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 6318 of 2008 Date of decision 21 .4.2008 A.K.Mahajan ...Petitioner Versus Baljinder Kaur Sahota and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.N.P.K.Singh , Advocate for the petitioner. M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing summoning order dated 2.4.2008 ( Annexure P.1) issued to the petitioner for contempt proceedings whereby personal appearance of the petitioner has been sought. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.6159 of 2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.4.2008 with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. A civil suit bearing No. 153 of 2006 was decided vide order dated 11.10.2007 in favour of the Passport Officer, Jalandhar- petitioner. However, on appeal filed by the plaintiff- respondent, the judgement and decree dated 11.10.2007 was reversed on 4.1.2008 by the Addl. District Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar. Accordingly a decreed was passed directing the petitioner to renew the passport of plaintiff- respondent no.1. The directions are based on the findings that the original passport is genuine and valid. Thereafter, the Regular Second Appeal was filed by the petitioner on 8.4.2008. The petitioner has claimed that contempt CWP No.6318 of 2008 2 proceedings have been initiated and reply has been filed by him on 2.4.2008. The petitioner was issued summons for personal appearance for 7.4.2008, 9.4.2008 and 11.4.2008 by the Addl. District Judge (Adhoc ), Jalandhar. In the reply, the stand taken is that no contempt proceedings are competent since there was no time bound directions and the appeal before the High Court against the order dated 4.1.2008 has been filed. In paras 9 and 10 of the petition, the following averments have been made: “ That the personal presence of the passport officer is not warranted and is wholly malafide. Under S., 16 of the Passport Act, 1967 provides protection from prosecution or any legal proceedings for any action done or intended to be done in good faith by the Passport Officer under the Act. Importantly, when otherwise also contempt proceedings don't lie against even non compliance of the said order, wherein no time had been specified for either compliance or appeal. Thus the contempt proceedings before the ld. ADJ, as well as, this action of seeking the Passport Officer's personal appearance at 10.0 AM on hearings ( 7.4.2008, 9.4.2008, 11.4.2008) are unwarranted and wholly arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India, patently misconceived and raises inter-alia the following law points for consideration....” Even in the question of law at serial No. 10(c) framed by the petitioner and the averments made in para 11 of the petition, the petitioner used scandalous language which are reproduced hereunder: “10(c) Whether the action of the respondent in proceeding with CWP No.6318 of 2008 3 contempt when no time period was specified to comply with the order is totally unjustified, contrary to law and malafide. 11.That the petitioner has no other alternate remedy against this arbitrary and unjustified and malafide action of the respondent except by way of this writ petition as no remedy of appeal or revision are available against the patently wrong contempt proceedings.” (emphasis added) At the outset, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain the background of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the Addl. District Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar- respondent no.2. A specific query was put to the learned counsel as to whether there is any animosity or past history of bad relationship between the petitioner and the learned Addl. District Judge (Adhoc) Jalandhar- respondent no.2. However, there was no answer to such a query because there are no facts available on record to prove the basis concerning allegation of malice. When the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 6159 of 2008 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 10.4.2008 the only party impleaded was Addl. District Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar. Even at that stage, we had asked as to how any relief can be claimed against a Judicial Officer. Thereafter the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one. However, the petitioner has again filed the petition by impleading the Judicial Officer as respondent no.2. Even otherwise, a perusal of order dated 2.4.2008 passed by the ld. Addl. District Judge does not show that any contempt proceedings have been initiated. It has only been asked as to why the order has not been complied with. The judgement and decree passed by the ld. Additional District Judge on 4.1.2008 had only directed petitioner to renew the Passport of the CWP No.6318 of 2008 4 plaintiff- respondent no.1 after recording a finding that the original passport is genuine and valid. For the reasons recorded above and in view of the scandalous language used by the petitioner, we dismiss the writ petition with costs which is assessed at Rs.20,000/-. Let the costs be deposited with the Member Secretary, Punjab Legal Services Authority within 30 days from the receipt of this order. If the costs are not deposited within the stipulated period, the Member Secretary, Punjab Legal Service Authority shall report to the Registry which shall list the case again for appropriate orders. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 21.4.2008 Judge okg