Bombay High Court
CONP/1/2003 of Vs MR. M.K. JOS AND ANR., on 9 December 2003
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. SUO MOTO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2003. Versus 1. Mr. M.K. Jos, All Goa Citizens Committee for Social Justice and Action, B/4, Mayfair, 2nd Floor, Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Panaji. 2. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary, Panaji. ... Respondents. Respondent
SUO MOTO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2003.
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. M.K. Jos, All Goa
Citizens Committee for Social
Justice and Action,
B/4, Mayfair, 2nd Floor,
Dr. Dada Vaidya Road,
Panaji.
2. State of Goa through
the Chief Secretary,
Panaji.... Respondents.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. H.D.
Naik, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent No. 2/State.
ORAL JUDGMENT(PER HARDAS, J.)
Notice against the contemner had been issued by this Court because the contemner had addressed a private communication to the learned Judges hearing Writ Petition No. 415 of 2003. The contemner claims to be the Executive Committee Member and Spokesman of All Goa Citizens’ Committee for Social Justice and Action. The private communication addressed by the contemner to the learned Judges requested the learned Judges to peruse the various documents annexed thereto and, after giving due consideration thereof, to decide Writ Petition No.
415 of 2003.
2. The contemner, in response to issuance of Rule in the Contempt Petition, has filed an affidavit, dated 6th November 2003. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, the contemner has tendered an unqualified apology and, in addition thereto, has promised this Court that in future he would not indulge in writing such letter petitions to the learned Judges hearing matters in the Court.
3. We strongly deprecate the attitude of parties/social organizations in addressing personal communications to the learned Judges in respect of matters on their board. No attempt, by whatsoever means, to influence the learned Judges can ever be countenanced. We have given our anxious consideration to the unqualified apology tendered by the respondent no. 1 as also his promise not to indulge in addressing communications to the learned Judges in respect of matters on their boards. We accept the apology but, at the same time, warn the contemner not to repeat such an instance in future and discharge the notice issued.
4. Accordingly, the notice of criminal contempt, issued by this Court, is discharged.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)JUDGE.
ed’s.
(P.V. HARDAS)JUDGE.