Full Text
#12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
For the Petitioner :
For the Respondent : Mrs. Kajal Chandra and Mr. Viren Kapur, Advocates with respondent in person
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. The present criminal contempt was issued suo motu by this Court, in view of the circumstance that, the contemnor, the respondent herein, had instituted a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said PIL’), without making a fair and complete 2018:DHC:8045-DB disclosure, as warranted in law, in relation to other proceedings pending between him and the respondents in the said PIL.
2. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 19.04.2018, not only dismissed the said PIL with costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/- but also issued a notice to show cause to the petitioner, as to why action for criminal contempt be not initiated against him.
3. The contemnor has caused to be filed an affidavit dated 18.12.2018 and it is considered necessary and appropriate to extract the contents thereof in full, so as to effectively and efficaciously adjudicate present suo motu action for contempt.
4. A perusal of the above extracted paragraphs reflect that, the contemnor had prior to the institution of the said PIL, filed a civil suit being CS(OS) 2491/2014, titled as ‘Raj Kumar Kasana vs. Gram Sudhar Sabha (Regd)', inter alia, against respondent Nos.2, 8 and 9 in the said PIL as members of the Gram Sudhar Sabha.
5. It is further observed that, it is the submission of the contemnor that the said civil suit was not instituted against the said respondents in their personal and individual capacity but as members of the Gram Sudhar Sabha.
6. It is urged by Mrs. Kajal Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnor that, it is in this view of the matter that, the contemnor did not disclose in the pleadings of the said PIL about the pendency of the said civil suit.
7. Mrs. Kajal Chandra, learned counsel would further urge that, the writ petitioner (contemnor herein) did not have any personal interest in instituting the said PIL and the same was necessitated by the rampant unauthorised construction being carried out in the premises where the respondents reside.
8. It is also urged that, it was not the intention of the contemnor to mislead this Hon’ble Court in the said PIL, and the non-disclosure of all material facts was purely on account of inadvertence.
9. Mrs. Kajal Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnor would lastly urge that, the contemnor has from the very inception of the suo motu proceedings clearly, unequivocally and unconditionally expressed his apologies to the Court for his conduct in not making a full and complete disclosure, in relation to the said civil suit and deeply regrets having abused the process of law in this manner.
10. In the present proceedings, it is observed that the contemnor has deposited the cost imposed upon him by this Court at the earliest opportunity. It is further observed that, although the contemnor failed to make a complete disclosure of all the material facts in the main body of the said PIL, the disobedience in this regard, in our view, cannot be characterised as wilful.
11. In view of the foregoing, since the contemnor had already expressed remorse and regret at his conduct and further tendered a complete and unconditional apology, for his act of omission, we are of the considered view that the criminal contempt be not proceeded with any further.
12. Resultantly, the notice to show cause as to why criminal contempt be not drawn against the contemnor, is hereby discharged.
13. The contemnor is, however, directed to be careful in future, whilst instituting proceedings, in accordance with law.
14. No further directions are called for, the present suo motu proceedings is disposed of accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (JUDGE) DECEMBER 19, 2018 as