PETITIONER:
ANJU MAHESHWARI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAMESH YADAV & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/1997
BENCH:
S.P. BHARUCHA, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
The following orders adequately explain the circumstances in which a suo moto contempt notice was issued to Mrs. Sumita Kandpal, Principal Secretary of the Medical Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Order dated 27th January,
1997:"Adjourned for 2 weeks. The
State of Uttar Pradesh shall file
an appropriate affidavit explaining
how the impugned order came to be
passed and why the counsel was not
appropriately instructed at that
stage. The Principal Secretary of
the Medical Health and Medical
Education Ministry shall remain
present in Court on the next date
of hearing."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Order dated 10th February, 1997:
"On 27th January, 1997, this Court
directed the Principal Secretary of
the Medical Health and Medical
Education Ministry to remain
present in Court on the next date
of hearing, the contempt petition
having been adjourned of two weeks.
Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel for
the State, on being asked, tells us
that the said Principal Secretary
is not present in Court. He States
that she is in the U.S.A. He states
that her programme to go to the USA
had been fixed as far back as July,
1996, that the order dated 27th,
January, 1997 was received in the
office of the said officer on 7th
February, 1997 when she was in
Delhi and that she flew out of
Delhi on 8th February, 1997.
Learned counsel states that the
said officer could not be contacted
before she flew out of Delhi.
An affidavit shall be filed by the
concerned officer (s) who is
supposed to have attempted to
contact the said officer (Mrs.
Sumita Kandpal) at Delhi, stating
the day and time at which
intimation of the fact of the said
order was first received in the
office of Ms. Sumita Kandpal, the
day and time (s) at which he
attempted to contact her and where.
We shall decide whether or not to
issue suo moto notice of contempt
breach of the order dated 27th
January, 1997, to Mrs.Sumita
Kandpal after we have perused the
affidavit(s).
The matter shall be listed on 3rd
March, 1997, by which time Mrs.
Sumita Kandpal, it is stated, will
be back in India. She shall be
present in Court on that day.
Mr. Dhingra states that it shall be
ensured that a copy of this order
is served on Mrs. Sumita Kandpal
when she arrives in Delhi.
Order dated 3rd March, 1997:
"On 27th January, 1997, the
Principal Secretary of the Medical
Health and Medical Education
Ministry of the State of U.P was
ordered to remain present on the
next date of hearing. On 10th
February, 1997 which was the next
date of hearing, we were told that
she had gone abroad, flying out of
Delhi on 8th February, 1997. We
thereupon directed the matter to be
listed today ordering that she
(Mrs. Sumita Kandpal) should be
present in Court.
The said officer is present, It is
stated on her behalf by Mr.
Sorabjee that she had, before
leaving Delhi on 8th February,
1997, filed and application of
exempting her from personal
appearance and for fixing another
date for her appearance. That
application was, apparently, never
filed.
Counsel, on being asked, stated
that the said officer had left the
country without finding out whether
the Court had passed an order
exempting her from appearance as
required by the order dated 27th,
January, 1997 and fixing another
dated for her appearance.
There can be no doubt, in the
circumstances, that the said
officer, knowing that there was an
order of this court that required
her presence, flew out of the
country before the date thereof and
was, therefore, not present as
directed.
We, therefore, do not, at this
stage least, accept the apology
tendered on behalf of the said
officer. We issue notice to her to
show cause why suo moto proceedings
for contempt should not be taken
against her."
Mrs. Sumita Kandpal has now filed an affidavit dated 4th April, 1997. She reiterates therein the unqualified apology tendered in her earlier affidavit dated 27th February, 1997. She stated that on receiving the order of this Court dated 27th January, 1997, She ensured full and complete compliance thereof on the next day. In view of her official programme to attend a conference in the United States of America, which had already been finalised she consulted the then Additional Advocate General, U.P., Shri G.K. Mehrotra. She was advised by him that she could go to the United States "as the order of this Honourable Court has been complied with and in view of the affidavit for exemption sworn on 6.2.97, as per legal advice given. The deponent admits that there has been an error on her part in not ascertaining from her counsel as to whether the affidavit of exemption had been filed and presented before this Hon’ble Court with a prayer for exemption and whether this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to pass and order exempting the deponent from appearance on 10.2.1997. The deponent expresses her deep regret and apology for this error.....The mistake on her part was on account of legal advice she received and which she bona fide believed to be correct." Her affidavit states that Mrs.. Kandpal is a senior IAS officer with an excellent and clean service record.
Learned counsel appearing for Mrs. Kandpal reiterated the unqualified apology contained in her affidavit. He drew attention to the circumstances in Which Mrs. Kandpal was not present in Court on 10th February, 1997. He submitted that the lapse was unintentional and due to erroneous legal advice. He asked this Court magnanimously to accept the unqualified apology Mrs. Kandpal had tendered.
We shall assume that Mrs. Kandpal was advised that she could go to the United States and not attend this Court on 10th February, 1997, in view of the fact that the order in connection with which her attendance was required had been complied with and in view of the affidavit for exemption that she had made, but Mrs. Kandpal, as she herself states, is a senior IAS officer. A senior IAS officer should know better than to presume that she need not obey the order of the Court because the purpose for which her presence was required no longer survived or that the exemption that she had sought would be given. It seems to us that Mrs. Kandpal put the order requiring her presence in Court on 10th February, 1997, out of her mind in her keenness to go abroad. It is only this which can explain the admitted fact that she did not even bother to find out whether this Court had in fact exempted her from appearance.
As against the patent dis-obedience of the order of this Court there are three factors which we must take into account. First, had Mrs. Kandpal’s exemption application been filed and moved, there is little doubt that it would have been granted. Secondly, to find Mrs. Kandpal guilty of contempt and punish her would blight her future career. Thirdly, Mrs. Kandpal has tendered an unqualified apology at the earliest.
Taking these factors into account, we accept the unqualified apology tendered by Mrs. Kandpal. At the same time, we sternly caution her to be more heedful of judicial orders in future.
The contempt notice issued to Mrs. Kandpal is discharged.