THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN SUO MOTU CONTEMPT CASE No.13 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This suo motu contempt case arises in the circumstances noticed as below. M/s.Vee Jay Marketing filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.33251 of 2010, assailing the notification and demand for penalty in Form VAT 203, dated 24.11.2010, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was denied adequate opportunity of filing the objections to the notice proposing penalty. On 30.12.2010 having noticed that the penalty order is bereft of any reasons, we directed the Special Counsel for Commercial Tax to produce the file. A submission was made in the afternoon that a copy of the reasons on a separate sheet was enclosed to the impugned order therein. The contemnor was present at that time. Not satisfied with the submission, we directed production of the file at 4:00 pm on that day. To our surprise the file did not contain any documents/proceedings of reasons. Ex facie, an attempt was made to interfere with the course of justice by misleading the Court. We allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of penalty. Taking a serious view of the matter, we also initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the contemnor. In obedience to Form I notice the contemnor appeared and engaged Counsel. A counter affidavit is filed. An unconditional apology has been tendered accepting the lapse, and also giving an undertaking that hereafter the Officer would be more careful in making submissions/instructing the Counsel appearing for the Department. We, as a public Court of justice and equity, do loathe any attempt on the part of anybody, approaching the Court for justice, to mislead the Court or over reaching the Court. Any person, be it the aggrieved or the defender, have to be fair to the Court, or else it would be forced to administer justice otherwise than as a reflection of righteousness, truth and justice. While observing so, we, however, close the Contempt Case accepting the unconditional apology. We only hope the contemnor shall be more careful in future while defending the cases filed against him as an Officer of Department of Commercial Taxes. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 15.02.2011 vs