Case: Naraindas Vs. Government M.P. &amp; Others

had become necessary to make such postponement. It may be that some of the statements made in the Press Note were not correct - for example, the statement that the State Government has formally prescribed the books prepared by the Text Books Corporation in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 4 (1) of Act 13 of 1973 was incorrect, because barring the order dated 24th May, 1973 which prescribed certain books printed and published by private publishers, there was no other order made by the State Government prescribing text books under S. 4 (1) of Act 13 of 1973. But mere making of incorrect statements in justification of a decision to postpone the reopening of the schools could not possibly have any prejudicial effect on the due course of justice so far as the appeal and the writ petition were concerned. It is quite possible that some of the statements made in the Press Note, If incorrect, might prejudicially affect the business of the appellant by bringing down sales of the text books printed and published by him, but that is very much different from saving that he would be prejudiced in the appeal or the writ petition. What we have to consider for the purpose of determining whether any of these statements constitutes contempt of court is whetherthese statements interfere or have a tendency to interfere with the due course of the appeal or the writ petition by creating prejudice against the appellant which would affect the fair bearing and disposal of the appeal or the writ petition. That effect, we are afraid, the statements in the Press Note complained of by the appellant do not have. It is not possible to hold that any of these statements constitutes contempt of court. 7. The charge of contempt against Y. N. Chaturvedi is also equally unsustainable. The complaint against Y. N. Chaturvedi was that on 19th June, 1973, when the applications for interim injunction and stay were heard by the learned Vacation Judge, he had got wrong statement made by the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh who appeared for the respondents namely, that all the 29 text books prepared by the text Books Corporation were printed and ready for sale and it was on account of this statement that the learned Vacation Judge had modified the interim order dated 18th May, 1973 by permitting the respondents to put in circulation and sale those 29 text books, but as appearing from the statement of Arjun Singh reported in Hitwad, this statement was incorrect because not only were those 29 text books not ready on 19th June, 1973 but they were not ready even on 2nd July, 1973 and the reopening of the schools had to be postponed by a fortnight to enable the Government to take necessary steps for the preparation, printing and publication of these 29 text books and their timely distribution to the students. The statement got made through the learned Advocate General by Y. N. Chaturvedi was thus a deliberately wrong statement calculated to obtain a relaxation of the interim order dated 18th May, 1973 in favour of the respondents and the making of such a deliberately misleading statement constituted contempt of court. Now there can be no doubt that if a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and wilfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order, it would prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding and thus amount to contempt of court. But here we cannot say that it is established satisfactorily by the appellant that any deliberately wrong or misleading statement was made or got made by Y. N. Chaturvedi with a view to obtain a relaxation of the interim order dated 18th May, 1973. Y. N. Chaturvedi has clearly stated in paragraph 12 of his affidavit dated 10th July, 1973 which has been referred to and relied upon in the affidavit filed by him in reply to the petition for contempt, that "The Advocate-General also submitted that 29 books had been in circulation for several years.It was also said that the respondents be permitted to get the books printed in 7 subjects mentioned in the order dated 24-5-1973. It is correct that the statement was made on behalf of the respondents that these 29 books were ready with them. The appellants counsel on the instructions of the appellant may have made a statement that books were not ready but that statement was not correct." "The advocate General had pointed out in the Court that the Society had got the books prepared and given to printers for printing and then delivery in the month of June. He also said that full arrangements had been made to make available books to students when schools opened in July and also submitted that Society could not go back as the printing under terms of agreement executed with the printers even if it wished to do so." It has also been said by Y. N. Chaturvedi in the affidavit filed by him in reply to the petition for contempt that all arrangement had been made by the Text books Corporation to have 29 text books ready for circulation when the schools reopened on 2nd July, 1973 and the reopening of the schools was not postponed because 29 text books were not ready for sale. This clearly shows that no reliance can be placed on the report of Hitwad as to the statement alleged to have been made by Arjun Singh and Y. N. Chaturvedi cannot be condemned on the basis of such report. In fact Arjun Singh himself has categorically asserted in the affidavit filed by him in reply to the petition for contempt that it was not correct to say that the reopening of the schools was postponed because 29 text books were not ready. There is, therefore, no substance in the charge of contempt against Y. N. Chaturvedi and that charge must fail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. The position which, therefore, now obtains is that the Revision Application in which the ex parte interim order was made on 28th March, 1973 and confirmed on 2nd April, 1973 has been disposed of and ex parte order of interim injunction dated 2nd March, 1973 has been vacated. The ex parte order of interim stay made on 28th March, 1973 and confirmed on 2nd April, 1973 has come to an end with the disposal of the Revision Application. The appeal directed against the ex parte order of interim stay made on 28th March, 1973 and confirmed on 2nd April, 1973 has therefore become academic. It does not survive and must accordingly be dismissed with no order as to costs. We have carefully gone through these four statements but we fail to see how they can at all be regarded as prejudicing in any manner whatsoever fair trial and hearing of the appeal and the writ petition. The State Government by the Press Note announced the postponement of the reopening of the schools in Madhya Pradesh from 2nd July, 1973 and made certain statements in the Press Note explaining why it had become necessary to make such postponement. It may be that some of the statements made in the Press Note were not correct - for example, the statement that the State Government has formally prescribed the books prepared by the Text Books Corporation in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 4 (1) of Act 13 of 1973 was incorrect, because barring the order dated 24th May, 1973 which prescribed certain books printed and published by private publishers, there was no other order made by the State Government prescribing text books under S. 4 (1) of Act 13 of 1973. But mere making of incorrect statements in justification of a decision to postpone the reopening of the schools could not possibly have any prejudicial effect on the due course of justice so far as the appeal and the writ petition were concerned. It is quite possible that some of the statements made in the Press Note, If incorrect, might prejudicially affect the business of the appellant by bringing down sales of the text books printed and published by him, but that is very much different from saving that he would be prejudiced in the appeal or the writ petition. What we have to consider for the purpose of determining whether any of these statements constitutes contempt of court is whetherthese statements interfere or have a tendency to interfere with the due course of the appeal or the writ petition by creating prejudice against the appellant which would affect the fair bearing and disposal of the appeal or the writ petition. That effect, we are afraid, the statements in the Press Note complained of by the appellant do not have. It is not possible to hold that any of these statements constitutes contempt of court7. The charge of contempt against Y. N. Chaturvedi is also equally unsustainable. The complaint against Y. N. Chaturvedi was that on 19th June, 1973, when the applications for interim injunction and stay were heard by the learned Vacation Judge, he had got wrong statement made by the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh who appeared for the respondents namely, that all the 29 text books prepared by the text Books Corporation were printed and ready for sale and it was on account of this statement that the learned Vacation Judge had modified the interim order dated 18th May, 1973 by permitting the respondents to put in circulation and sale those 29 text books, but as appearing from the statement of Arjun Singh reported in Hitwad, this statement was incorrect because not only were those 29 text books not ready on 19th June, 1973 but they were not ready even on 2nd July, 1973 and the reopening of the schools had to be postponed by a fortnight to enable the Government to take necessary steps for the preparation, printing and publication of these 29 text books and their timely distribution to the students. The statement got made through the learned Advocate General by Y. N. Chaturvedi was thus a deliberately wrong statement calculated to obtain a relaxation of the interim order dated 18th May, 1973 in favour of the respondents and the making of such a deliberately misleading statement constituted contempt of court. Now there can be no doubt that if a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and wilfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order, it would prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding and thus amount to contempt of court. But here we cannot say that it is established satisfactorily by the appellant that any deliberately wrong or misleading statement was made or got made by Y. N. Chaturvedi with a view to obtain a relaxation of the interim order dated 18th May, 1973. Y. N. Chaturvedi has clearly stated in paragraph 12 of his affidavit dated 10th July, 1973 which has been referred to and relied upon in the affidavit filed by him in reply to the petition for contempt, that "The Advocate-General also submitted that 29 books had been in circulation for several years.It was also said that the respondents be permitted to get the books printed in 7 subjects mentioned in the order dated 24-5-1973. It is correct that the statement was made on behalf of the respondents that these 29 books were ready with them. The appellants counsel on the instructions of the appellant may have made a statement that books were not ready but that statement was not correct." "The advocate General had pointed out in the Court that the Society had got the books prepared and given to printers for printing and then delivery in the month of June. He also said that full arrangements had been made to make available books to students when schools opened in July and also submitted that Society could not go back as the printing under terms of agreement executed with the printers even if it wished to do so." It has also been said by Y. N. Chaturvedi in the affidavit filed by him in reply to the petition for contempt that all arrangement had been made by the Text books Corporation to have 29 text books ready for circulation when the schools reopened on 2nd July, 1973 and the reopening of the schools was not postponed because 29 text books were not ready for sale. This clearly shows that no reliance can be placed on the report of Hitwad as to the statement alleged to have been made by Arjun Singh and Y. N. Chaturvedi cannot be condemned on the basis of such report. In fact Arjun Singh himself has categorically asserted in the affidavit filed by him in reply to the petition for contempt that it was not correct to say that the reopening of the schools was postponed because 29 text books were not ready. There is, therefore, no substance in the charge of contempt against Y. N. Chaturvedi and that charge must fail.