HC imposes fine in contempt case
Allahabad, Aug 24 (UNI) Allahabad High Court has imposed a heavy special cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner for falsely dragging a senior IPS officer alongwith PCS officer in a contempt case.
After considering the entire relevant records and facts of the case, Justice M C Jain exonerated both the officers, O P S Malik, IPS, and S N Pandey, the then rent control and eviction officer Allahabad.
The allegation of the petitioner was that both the officers had flouted the court order of March 16, 1993, whereby the operation of the order of rent control and eviction officer allotting a house in favour of Mr Malik, had been stayed.
The court, while exonerating the opposite parties of contempt charges imposed Rs 25,000 as special cost on the petitioner, Naresh Chandra Kapoor, landlord of the house located at Nyay Marg, Allahabad to be deposited with the HC legal service committee here within a month.
Later on, the petitioner withdrew his contempt petition.
Justice Jain took serious view of it and observed ''contempt jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and maintaining the authority of law as is administered in courts.
''It cannot be used to satisfy the private grudge of a litigant or as a tool in nailing one's opponent by creating pressure in one form or the other.
''In the present case, the petitioner did not care or dare to file rejoinder affidavit to rebut assertions made by two contemners in their counter affidavits by reiterating his earlier allegations and averments on the basis of which the contempt proceedings were initiated.
''Without any regard for the majesty of law, the courts and the judges manning the system, he (the petitioner) imputed malignity of the whole set of judges of this court at the hands of the opposite party no 1 (IPS officer) by even putting abusive words in his mouth unworthy to be uttered in civilized society against anyone, let alone the HC judges.
''He made a farce of the judicial system and ridiculed it by tinkering with due process of law. It is sad and bad he tampered with the judicial process without any qualms of conscience.
''He not only subjected the opposite parties to extreme anxiety and mental trauma during the pendency of these contempt proceedings, but also made mockery of the judicial system, apart from wasting the precious time of the court.
''The course adopted by the petitioner is highly deprecatory and has to be curbed with strong hands,'' remarked the court.
UNI XC VS MIR PC2134