DIVISION BENCH" ' ‘ ’ f CORAM:_ HON’BLE MR T P SHARMA AND v ‘ HON BLE MR R L JHANWAR JJ Criminal Contemgt Case No 1 of 200 COMPLAINANT/: (Petitioner) Alok Jaiswal, Aged about 33 years S/o Late Shrl Kannllal Jalswal R/o Near Police Control Room once Line Amblkapur DIstrIctSurgLua(CG) .I ' Versw Amlt Katarlya Additional CollectorIS'5,‘ AmbIkapur Dlstt Surgula (CG) CONTEMNORS: zfA 2.' Lokeshwar Sa. u,.mmls3Ioner MunICIpaI (CG) Corporatlon Amblkapur Dlstt SurgUJa ‘3; Slddharth Komal Slngh Pardeshl Sub- DIVISIonal Magistrate and Sub DIVISIonaI OfFIcer Amblkapur Dlstt Surgula (CG) {Contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India} Present Mr VG Tamaskar With Mr Vlkram DIXIt counself Mr Sumesh BaJaI, counsel for respondent No 1 Mr B D Guru counsel for respondents No 2 & 3 r the petitioner. ORDER (Passed on 12‘“ May 201 1) he followmo order of the Court was passed by T P Sharma J - This Is petition for Initiation of crlmmal contempt suo motu agamst the respondents under Article 215 of the Constitution of tndia 2 As per the contempt case In W P No 183/2006 (Kanaklata JaIswaJ v. State of Chhattlsgarh and five others) flied on behalf of mother of the petitioner herein agamst six respondents under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India this Court has passed order on 131 -2006 and , while Issumg notices to reSpondents No.2 to 4 therein, status quo that I ;; h Co T 2 obtained as on that day with regard to all the material aspects was directed against respondents No.3 & 4 therein namely the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) and Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG), respectively. On that day, respondents No.1, 5 & 6 therein namely State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Ambikapur, Surguja (CG); S.D.O. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG); and Director, Town & Country Planning, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG), respectively, were IL represented by the Deputy Govt. Advocate (Advocate General). Respondent No.2 — Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Through its Commissioner, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) was not represented on that day. On 13—1-2006 i.e. the date of order in the aforesaid writ petition, authorized counsel of the petitioner tiled an affidavit before contemnors No.2 & 3 herein i.e. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur & the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambikapur, respectively, regarding the status quo order passed by this Court and on 14-1-2006 at early hours, certified copy of the order of status quo was placed before the respondents therein who were demolishing the construction, but instead of obeying the stay order, respondent/ contemnor No.2 after receiving the certified copy, lost his temper, torn the same into pieces and used filthy language. Respondent/contemnor No.1v also assaulted counsel of the petitioner at the time of submission of such order of status quo. All the respondents have deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the order passed by this Court. Directions have been published in the newspapers. The petitioner herein has filed application before the Advocate General on 17-1-2006 for obtaining consent for filing contempt petition and thereafter, he filed the present contempt case for taking suo motu cognizance of the contempt of this court. The petitioner has filed copies of newspaper cuttings sho news item relating to the aforesaid demolition of houses and violation of the status quo order and the disobedience made by the respondents. 3. By tiling return, respondent No.1, the then Additional Collector, has tendered unconditional apology for any act or omission and has alleged that he was not patty to the petition, no order of status quo has been passed relating to him, the order has not been communicated to him, unauthorized construction demolition drive was carried out by the authorities and when the order of the High Court was communicated to them, they have immediately stopped the aforesaid drive. 4. By filing separate returns, respondents No.2 & 3 have also tendered unconditional apology and have alleged that demolition of unauthorized construction was going on, but after communication of the stay order, same was stopped and they have not disobeyed the order of this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of status quo dated 13-1-2006. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this is petition for initiation of suo motu contempt proceeding against the contemnors for willful violation and disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.183/2006. After considering the material, Division Bench of this Court in which the Chief Justice .was one of the members, has issued show cause notice to the contemnors which shows that after considering the material the Division Bench of this Court in which the Chief Justice was also one of the members was 0f the opinion for taking initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondents and, therefore, the petition for initiation of suo motu contempt proceeding in terms of Section 15 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), is maintainable. 4, Learned counsel further argued that State of Chhattisgarh, Th r Collector, Ambikapur, Surguja (CG), was arrayed as respondent No.1 in the writ petition and it was represented by its law officer. Although the order of status quo was passed relating to respondent No.2 herein i.e. respondent No.3 therein and another respondent i.e. Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, but it was obligatory upon every authority and person of the State to obey and comply the order passed by this Court. Respondent No.1 herein was working through and under the State authorities. Likewise, respondents No.2 & 3 herein‘were direct party and they were bound by the order passed in W.P.No.183/2006, same was communicated to them, but they have willfully and intentionaHy disobeyed the order which is evident from copies of newspaper cuttings filed on behalf of the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also tiled application for consent for tiling contempt petition before the Advocate General vide Annexure P-7, but till date the Advocate General has not consented for the same. The order of status quo has been communicated to all the respondents and by hooks & crooks they had tried to avoid such communication to save themselves from contempt proceeding. . On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2 & 3 opposed the petition and submitted that respondents No.1, 2 & 3 have tendered unconditional apology. The order was not communicated to them and the order was specifically relating to respondents No.3 & 4 therein namely the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) and Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG), respectively, especially when other authorities were also respondents in the said writ petition and when the order was passed on 13-1—2006. On 14-1—2006 during the course of 565/ demolition of unauthorized construction, when the order was communicated to them, they have immediately stopped the demolition proceeding. Learned counsel further submitted that criminal contempt is a criminal liability and is required to be proved strictly. The petitioner has not filed any material to show that the order was communicated to the respondents and even after communication of such order they have willfully disobeyed the order. ln absence of such prima facie material, contempt proceeding is not maintainable against the respondents. Learned counsel also submitted that the present contempt petition is not maintainable as it was not placed before the Chief Justice in Chamber and same is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the matter of Ranveer Singh Shastri and another v. Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava1 in which the Division Bench of this Court has held that in case of initiation of suo motu contempt proceeding, the petition or the materials are required to be placed before the Chief Justice. ln the present case, although notices have been issued by Division Bench in which the Chief Justice was one of the members, but the matter was not placed before the Chief Justice as held in Ranveer Singh’s case (supra). Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. . While dealing with the question of maintainability of contempt petition for taking suo motu action, after applying the dictum in the matters of Anil Kumar Gupta v. K. Subba Raoz, ‘P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar and others3, State of Kerala v. M.S. Mani and others4 & Bal Thackrey v. ' Harish Pimpalkhute and others5, this Court in the matter of Mohd. i 12011 (1) M.P.H.T. 69 (CG) . 2 ILR (1974) 1 Del. 1 3 (1988) 3 scc 167 ‘ 4 (2001) 3 scc 82 5 (2005) 1 scc 254 ’k x‘w Arshad Khan v. Shree Prakash Choubey alias Deen Dayal Choubey6 has held that in case the petition is not covered by clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Section 15 (1) of the Act, then for taking action on its own motion, the petitioner is required to submit the material/petition before the Chief Justice. This Court has also directed the Registrar General to take note of this fact. Same view has been reiterated in Ranveer Singh’s case (supra). 6 . While dealing with same question the Supreme Court in the matter of B.N. Shivanna v. Advanta India Limited and another7 observed in paras 15 & 16 that without applying the aforesaid procedure, contempt petition is not maintainable. Paras 15 & 16 of the said judgment read as follows: — “ 15. In State of Kerala v. M.S. Mani (supra) this Court held that the requirement of obtaining prior consent of the Advocate General in writing for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt is mandatory and failure to obtain the prior consent would render the motion non—maintainable.‘ ln case, a party obtains consent subsequent to filing the petition, it would not cure the initial defect and thus, the petition would not become maintainable. .16. In Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute (supra) this Court held that in absence of the consent of the Advocate General in respect of a criminal contempt tiled by a party under Section 15 of the 1971 Act, taking suo motu action for contempt without a prayer, was not maintainable.” 10.ln para 17 of B.N. Shivanna’s case (supra), the Supreme Court further by relying upon the matter of Amicus Curiae v. Prash‘ant Bhushang 6 2010 (4) M.P.H.T. 13 (CG) 7 (2011) 4 scc 216 8 (2010) 7 soc 592 “W 31g} has held that in rare cases even without the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, the contempt proceedings must be held to be maintainable. In para 18 of the said judgment the Supreme Court has further observed that in that case contempt proceeding was filed by the Registrar General of the High Court who made clear that the complaint itself has been filed on behalf of the High Court by the Advocate General and the issue has not been agitated before the High Court. Para 18 of B.N. Shivanna’s case (supra) reads thus, “18. in the instant case, the question of whether the matter had been placed before the Chief Justice in Chambers is a question of fact. The issue has not been agitated before the High Court, rather the complaint flled by the Registrar General of the High Court makes it clear that the complaint itself has been filed on behalf of the High Court by the Advocate General. It is evident from the record that case CCC (Crl.) No.12 of 2002 has been tiled by the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka (suo motu) through the Advocate General of the State. Therefore, the issue does not require any further consideration so far as the procedural aspects are concerned. Thus, in view of the above, the objection raised by the appellant is merely hyper technical and does not warrant further consideration.” 11.As regards maintainability of contempt proceeding against the respondents herein, in order to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents/any person, the petitioner is required to submit prima facie strong evidence against the contemnors to show that the order disobeyed was within their knowledge and it has been"r7vell . communicated to them. In the present petition, the order of status quo was specifically directed against only two respondents out of the six respondents. The alleged disobedience is relating to second day of passing of the order. 8 12.The petitioner has tried to rely upon the news pubiished in newspapers which are hearsay in nature and are inadmissibie unless the maker of the statement is examined. While‘ deaiing with the question of ‘ admissibiiity of newspaper reports, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ali India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam ’v. ‘L.K. Tripathi and othersg has held that facts stated in newspapers are hearsay in nature and are inadmissible unless the maker of the statement is examined; and thatjudicial notice cannot be taken of such facts. ; 13.Definitely, criminal contempt is an offence and standard of proof required is that of a criminal case. While dealing with the question of requirement :- of standard of proof, the Supreme Court in L.K. Tripathi’s case (supra) has observed in para 78 as follows: - “78. We may now notice some judgments in which the courts have considered the question relating to burden 10 of proof in contempt cases. In Bramblevale Ltd., Re Lord Denning observed: (All ER pp. 1063 H-1064 B) “A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it. it must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time- honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence. Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.” 9 (2009) 5‘scc 417 10 1970 Ch 128 : (1969) 3 WLR 699 : (1969) 3 Au ER 1062 (CA) . . l 14.ln the‘present case virtually, the petitioner has not collected any material, prima facie to show that the order of status quo was within the knowledge of the respondents or has been communicated to them. The petitioner has not collected material except affidavit of the patty and cuttings of newspapers. As heid by the Supreme Cdur‘t in the matter of AII India (supra), the petitioner has not filed statement on oath 'of the person who has made statement in the alleged newspaper. Affidavit of the party alone is not prima facie sufficient to show that the respondents have disobeyed the order of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, in which the Chief Justice was one of the members, has issued show cause notice, but it was not placed before the Chief Justice in Chamber. 15.For the foregoing reasons, in absence of any material of communication of the order of this Court, evidence of willful and intentional disobedience of the order of this Court by the respondents and in the light of orders passed in the matters of Ranveer Singh (supra), Mohd. Arshad Khan (supra) and B.N. Shivanna (supra), the present petition for suo motu initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondents is not maintainable and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed. ,gr. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Sdl- T. P. Sharma Judge ’> li- 'l Judge 12—5-201 1