Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s. 19(1)(b) – Contempt of court – Reconstruction of the unauthorised constructions – On facts, writ petition by the respondent seeking action against appellantjunior engineer and others involved in the incident of demolition alleging that they first permitted to carry on unauthorised construction on the property and later on unilaterally demolished the structure – Suo motu action by the High Court as per the earlier order in PIL restraining unauthorised constructions’ in unauthorised colonies – Issuance of notices to appellant – Filing of affidavits by appellant and other officers – Conviction of the appellant for committing contempt of court holding that the appellant-junior engineer by filing false affidavit, attempted to mislead the court and his acts tended to substantially interfere with the due course of justice – On appeal, held: Appellant was not served with any charges muchless specific charge which he was expected to meet – High Court made no attempt to verify or examine the contemporaneous record relied upon by the appellant – High Court ought to have tested the authenticity and veracity of the contemporaneous record – Affidavit so filed cannot be termed as incorrect or misleading – It cannot be held that the demolition work undertaken was not in conformity with the position reflected in the contemporaneous office submissions/record and photographs submitted by appellant to his superior authority – Thus, the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court set aside and show cause notices issued to appellant are dropped.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is evident that the High Court took suo motu action as it was prima facie convinced that unauthorised construction was carried out in the Farms despite the direction contained in the order in a writ petition. The order also records that the show cause notice was accepted by the officers present in Court. The appellant, like other officers, filed his affidavit revealing the relevant facts concerning him. The appellant had explained the factual position as to the action of demolition of unauthorised structures in the Farms during the relevant period as per the task assigned to him by his superior officers and reporting of that fact to his superiors by way of contemporaneous office submission. The correctness of the said contemporaneous office reports could not be and has not been questioned or doubted as such. The reply affidavit makes it amply clear that the Commissioner of the Corporation was personally supervising the demolition work of unauthorised constructions and, therefore, there was no reason to doubt the contemporaneous record in the form of office submissions and photographs reinforcing the fact of demolition. The report of the Committee of advocates, however, was based on the site visit made in January, 2001 after a gap of more than 6 months from 7th June, 2000 and 3 months from 14 th September, 2000 when the demolition was actually carried out. The factual position stated in the said report, therefore, may not be the actual position as obtained on the date of demolition. It is not unknown that such unauthorised structures could be and were reconstructed overnight after the demolition work is undertaken by the officials. That was done by unscrupulous persons clandestinely and without notice. The factual position stated in the reply affidavit filed by the appellant also reveals that continuous follow-up action was being taken in respect of unauthorised structures including those which were demolished. Furthermore, the appellant was transferred from the concerned ward w.e.f. 27th September, 2000 and any development or illegal activity unfolding after that date cannot be attributed to the appellant. All these aspects have not been considered by the High Court. [Para 9] [641-G-H; 642-A-F]
Sahdeo Alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2010) 3 SCC 705 : [2010] 2 SCR 1086 ; Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and Anr. (2011) 5 SCC 496 : [2011]
5 SCR 329 ; Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Syed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors. Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Syed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 739 :
[2001] 2 SCR 471 – referred to.
1.2 Going by the material on record it is not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had contributed to the reconstruction of the unauthorised structure before or after 27th September, 2000. Furthermore, the appellant was not served with any charges muchless specific charge which he was expected to meet. Yet, the final conclusion in the impugned judgment is that the acts of the appellant tended to substantially interfere with the due course of justice and amounted to committing criminal contempt of court for having filed incorrect affidavit. The High Court made no attempt to verify or examine the contemporaneous record relied upon by the appellant in support of his plea that the factual position stated in the affidavit filed by him was borne out and reinforced from the said record. The affidavit so filed cannot be termed as incorrect or misleading by relying on the report of the advocates’ committee, which was prepared after a gap of 6 months from the date of first demolition and 3 months from the second demolition. [Para 12] [645-D-E]
1.3 The finding recorded by the High Court that the property was not razed to the ground based on the report prepared in January, 2001, therefore, is not the correct approach and is manifestly wrong. The High Court ought to have tested the authenticity and veracity of the contemporaneous record in the form of office submissions, Misel Band register, office files, notices, photograph and press reports etc. relied upon by the appellant. It would be a different matter if the contemporaneous record did not support the stand taken by the appellant in the affidavits filed by him. As a matter of fact, the appellant has already faced departmental enquiry in which the matter in issue has been exhaustively dealt with and the plea taken by the appellant has been found to be correct. [Para 13] [645-G-H; 646-A-B]
1.4 The specific stand taken by the appellant was not considered by the High Court at all. The appellant made this grievance in the review petition, but of no avail. It is not possible to hold that the demolition work undertaken on 7th June, 2000 and 14th September 2000 was not in conformity with the position reflected in the contemporaneous office submissions/record and photographs submitted by the appellant to his superior authority. As a matter of fact, the appellant ought to succeed on the singular ground that the High Court unjustly proceeded against him without framing formal charges or furnishing such charges to him; and moreso because filing of affidavit by the appellant was supported by contemporaneous official record, which cannot be termed as an attempt to obstruct the due course of administration of justice. [Paras 16, 17] [648-C-E]
1.5 The impugned judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi are quashed and set aside and the show cause notices issued to the appellant pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of the High Court are hereby dropped. [Para 18] [648-F-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.