IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. O.C.P. No. 9 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 18.05.2011 Court on its own motion .... PETITIONER Versus Baldev Singh Virk, Advocate, District Courts, Kurukshetra ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL By Order * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, who was the Chairman of Debt Conciliation Board, Kurukshetra, has made this reference for initiating contempt proceedings against Mr. Baldev Singh Virk, Advocate, District Courts, Kurukshetra, for his contemptuous behaviour and un-parliamentary language used by him during the reconciliation proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board, Kurukshetra. We have perused the reference. As per the notification dated 2.3.2007, the Debt Conciliation Board was established in each district of the State of Haryana, which was to be headed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. As per the said notification, the primary purpose of setting up of these Boards is to give relief to those debtors who depend for their livelihood on cultivation of land Crl. O.C.P. No. 9 of 2011 -2- and allied activities. Such kind of Debt Conciliation Boards do not judicially adjudicate a dispute raised before it. Thus, these Boards cannot be said to be a court subordinate to this Court, either administratively or judicially. Therefore, for any alleged mis-behaviour by a person during the reconciliation proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board, the contempt proceedings cannot be initiated under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Sarkar Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow v. Vinay Chandra Misra, 1981 Criminal Law Journal 283, relied upon in the reference, is not applicable in this case, because in that case, the Board of Revenue was exercising the judicial functions, determining the disputes between two parties and it is judicially subordinate to the High Court, as the orders passed by the Board of Revenue are subject to challenge ultimately before the High Court. In light of those fact, the Board of Revenue, U.P., which was functioning under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, was held to be a court subordinate to the High Court. In view of the above, the reference is declined, as no contempt proceedings can be initiated against the respondent. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE May 18, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE