WRIT PETITION 19664 of 1996 on 29 December 1996

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, AT CHANDIGARH.

Civil Contempt Appeal No 19 of 1998 Decided on March 12,2008

Ram Kishan Gupta

--- Appellant

v.

Jai Parkash and others

---Respondents

A N D

Civil Contempt Appeal No.17 of 1998 Decided on March 12,2008.

Mange Ram

--- Appellant.

v.

Jai Parkash and others

---Respondents.

Present:Mr. O.P.Goyal,Senior Advocate, with Ms.Priya Khanna and Mr.R.A.Sheoran,Advocates, for the appellants in both the cases.

Mr.Jaswant Jain,Advocate,for the respondents.

Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:

This order shall dispose of two contempt appeals i.e. CACPNo. 19 of 1998 and 17 of 1998.

The facts are, however, taken from CACP No. 19 of 1998.

The respondents filed C.W.P.No.19664 of 1996 seeking a writin the nature of certiorari for quashing notice issued for winding upDadri Education Society, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani and its mergerwith Dadri Education Trust and also a writ in the nature of prohibitionfor holding meeting on 29.12.1996 for merging Dadri Education Societyinto a Trust. In this writ petition, on 20.12.1996, notice of motion wasissued for 06.2.1997 and operation of Annexure P-5 (notice dated01.11.1996) was stayed meanwhile.

The petitioners filed C.O.C.P.No. 65 of 1997 under Sections11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Ram Kishan Guptaand Mange Ram for disobeying the order dated 20.12.1996 passed inC.W.P.No.19664 of 1996 titled Jai Parkash and others v. State ofHaryana and others, on the ground that inspite of stay order dated20.12.1996, both Ram Kishan Gupta and Mange Ram held meeting at theresidence of Ram Kishan Gupta on 29.12.1996, and passed a resolutionregarding winding up of Dadri Education Society and its merger withDadri Educational Trust.

The contempt petition was contested by both the respondentstherein in which Ram Kishan Gupta had inter-alia pleaded that heremained admitted as an indoor patient in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital,New Delhi from 04.12.1996 to 28.12.1996 and was discharged on29.12.1996, therefore, he had no knowledge of the stay order passed by thisCourt. However, this plea was not accepted and vide order dated22.9.1998, it was held that both the contemners were aware of the stay orderand the meeting that had taken place had wilfully floated the order dated 20.12.1996. They were,thus, held guilty of Contempt of Court and werepunished for simple imprisonment for a term of three months' each andalso a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of making the payment of fine,they were ordered to undergo imprisonment for another term of 15 days.It was ordered that if the fine is recovered, the same shall be paid to thepetitioners by way of compensation. The contempt petition was allowedwith costs which was assessed at Rs. 20,000/- to be shared by both therespondents equally.

Both Ram Kishan Gupta and Mange Ram filed separateappeals under Sections 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971against the order dated 22.9.1998 passed by learned Single Judge, whichwas registered as Civil Contempt Appeal No. 17 of 1998 titled as MangeRam v. Jai Parkash and others and Civil Contempt Appeal No.19 of1998 titled as Ram Kishan Gupta v. Jai Parkash and others. The appealswere admitted on 29.4.1999. The judgment to the extent of awardingimprisonment and costs was stayed.

We have heard Mr.O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms.PriyaKhanna and Mr. R.A.Sheoran,Advocates, for the appellant(s) in both theappeals and Mr. Jaswant Jain,Advocate, for the respondents and haveperused the record.

At the out-set, Mr. O.P. Goyal, learned Senior Counsel hassubmitted that his client Ram Kishan Gupta is an old man of 91 years ofage and is a heart patient. He has further submitted that appellants holdthis Court and all other Courts established by law in the highest esteem.The appellants also tendered unqualified apology and has purged thecontempt. Similar is the prayer made by Mr. R,A.Sheoran, counsel for the other contemner Mange Ram.

Though, we find that the contempt is made out , yet in viewof the fact that the appellant Ram Kishan Gupta is 91 years of age, aheart patient and has purged the contempt, similarly appellant Mange Ramhas also purged the contempt, we deem it appropriate to set aside theorder of sentence and reduce the amount of compensation to Rs.10,000/-only in both the cases, to which counsel for the respondents has raised onobjection.

With above modification, both the appeals are herebypartly allowed and it is ordered that the sentence imposed upon theappellants by the learned Single Judge is of three months simpleimprisonment, is set aside. But the appellants shall have to pay the fineas well as costs which is reduced to Rs.10000/- each in both the appealsto be shared by both the appellants equally.

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge.

March 12,2008RR

( Mehtab S.Gill )

Judge