SCA/984/2006 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 984 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = URMILABEN H.PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus ADVOCATE GENERAL & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================= = Appearance : MR DEVESH A BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 23/01/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order No.3/2005 dated 29th September, SCA/984/2006 2/6 JUDGMENT 2005 passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. the learned Advocate General, State of Gujarat, in declining to grant permission under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act to prosecute one Shri K.R.Kaushik, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad for commission of Contempt of the Court. 2.When the matter is called out, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is absent. Under the circumstances, this Court has no other alternative but to decide and dispose of the present Special Civil Application on the basis of the material available and the averments in the petition as well as the impugned order. 3.It appears from the record that the petitioner has filed criminal complaint being Criminal Complaint No.95/2005 alleging the commission of the offence under Section 29 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act; 2002 and also under Sections 166, 426 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code against Shri B.C.Shah, Chief Officer, Shri P.K.Sharma, Deputy General Manager and Mr. Pradeep Mehta, Deputy Chief Officer of UCO Bank, Ahmedabad. The respondent No.2 herein Shri K.R.Kaushik, SCA/984/2006 3/6 JUDGMENT Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad shown as accused No.4 in the said criminal complaint. It appears from the record that earlier one complaint dated 28th October, 2004 was given to the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad in respect of forcibly taking over the possession of the property without recourse to due process of law i.e. without obtaining requisite orders from the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. It appears that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order directing Shri K.R.Kaushik, Commissioner of Police to submit his report within 15 days in respect of the progress made in the said complaint filed at Navrangpura Police Station at Ahmedabad and the said report was to be produced on or before 9.6.2005. However, it is the allegation on behalf of the petitioner that the said report was also not produced on 7.7.2005 and it is alleged by the petitioner that by not producing the progress report in respect of the earlier criminal complaint as directed by the Court, Shri K.R.Kaushik, Commissioner of Police, has flouted the orders of the Court and thereby, committed the offence of criminal contempt and therefore, the petitioner has sought permission of the learned Advocate General, State of Gujarat under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section SCA/984/2006 4/6 JUDGMENT 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act; 1971 and the learned Advocate General, State of Gujarat after considering the papers forwarded by the petitioner and after observing that nothing has been averred as regards further progress of criminal complaint No.95/2005 filed against Shri K.R.Kaushik, Commissioner of Police, and even after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, by impugned order dated 29th September, 2004 declined to grant permission under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner by way of the present Special Civil Application. 4.On going through the impugned order passed by the learned Advocate General, it appears that the property in question is attached and possession of the property has been taken over by the UCO Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation Act and the property in question was a secured asset. The learned Advocate General has also considered that under the provisions of the Securitisation Act, the Bank has right to attach and sell the secured asset for realizing secured assets for recovery of its dues. The learned Advocate General has observed that the possession of the property has been taken over by the Bank in view of the powers SCA/984/2006 5/6 JUDGMENT conferred by Section 13 of the Securitisation Act and the said possession has been taken over after the order dated 4.8.2004 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in an application filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act and therefore, whether there is any contravention of the provisions of the Securitisation Act is to be decided by the competent forum invested with the powers of adjudication under the Act. The learned Advocate General has also observed that as such the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad has also wide powers to compel the persons to implement its order and directions under the Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973 and even the said Court has powers to refer the mater to the High Court after recording the prima-facie findings in respect of the commission of the act of criminal contempt for initiating the contempt proceedings against the contempter and after so observing the learned Advocate General has given finding that there is no sufficient material to come to the conclusion that Shri K.R.Kaushik, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad has committed criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Advocate General while declining to grant permission has also observed that no attempt has been SCA/984/2006 6/6 JUDGMENT made by said Shri K.R.Kaushik to scandalize or to lower down the authority of the Court or to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. Considering the entire order as a whole which is a well reasoned order, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Advocate General declining to grant permission under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act is in any way illegal and/or contrary to the provisions of the Act which requires interference at the hands of this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5.For the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present Special Civil Application and the same is required to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. (M.R.SHAH, J.) kdc.