Anil R.Dave, K.A.Puj, JJ. - (1.) (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE) This appeal has been directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 2006 in Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 206.
(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are as under: (1) On 17.2.2006, in one of the courts, mobile phone of the appellant, who is a senior advocate practising in this court, started ringing. The appellant, upon finding that his mobile phone had started ringing, switched off the phone while going out of the court room so as to see that the court is not disturbed. When the learned single Judge noticed that the phone of the appellant had started ringing in the court, he issued notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for ignoring the directions given by that court that nobody should bring his working mobile phone in the court so as to allow his mobile phone to ring. The notice was made returnable on 24.2.2006. It was also directed that the appellant should remain present in the court on that day. The said proceedings were registered as Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 2006. (2) The appellant filed Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 2006, which came up for hearing on 24.2.2006, under sec. 14(2) of the Act with the following prayers: "A. to allow this application and cause the matter to be placed together with a statement of facts of the case before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for such direction as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial of the charge against the applicant. B. to extend the time for the filing of affidavit-in-reply to Miscellaneous Civil Application No.27 of 2006 by the applicant till expiry of one week from the date of order of this Hon'ble Court on this Miscellaneous Civil Application. C. to stay pending the hearing and final disposal of this application, further proceedings in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.27 of 2006. D. to grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper." In the said application the appellant submitted that looking to the provisions of sec.14(2) of the Act, and more particularly in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohmad Zaher Khan v. Vijai Singh and others, AIR 1992 SC 642, the appellant had the option to have the charge against him heard by some judge or judges other than the judge or judges in whose presence or hearing he was alleged to have committed contempt. In para 2.2 of the said application, the appellant has explained the circumstances in which his mobile phone had rung and that he felt sorry for ringing of his mobile phone in the court room. (3) On 24.2.2006, when the said application " M.C.A. No. 47 of 2006 " was placed for hearing, the learned single Judge did not pass any final order on the said application and adjourned the hearing to 16.3.2006 by passing an order incorporating some other facts. According to the learned single Judge, for the reasons stated in the said order, no final order was passed on the said application. However, the learned single Judge assured the learned counsel for the appellant that before proceeding further in the matter, he would certainly pass an order on the application. (4) According to the facts incorporated in the impugned order, due to the incident of ringing of mobile phone of the appellant, the Bar Association of Gujarat High Court had passed resolutions, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures-1 & 2 to the said order. So far as the first resolution is concerned, which pertains to intervention of the Bar Association in the said matter, the learned single Judge observed that it was for the Bar to decide as to what the Bar should do. Similarly, so far as the second resolution is concerned, the learned single Judge observed that it had nothing to do with the contempt matter, but he had taken the said resolution on record. (5) Thereafter, the learned single Judge has referred to the news published in newspapers named 'Rajsthan Patrika', 'Gujarat Vaibhav', 'Divya Bhaskar' (Ahmedabad Edition) and 'Gujarat Samachar' (Ahmedabad Edition) on 21.2.2006. He has also referred to 'Dainik Bhaskar' published from Indore. The relevant extracts of the said newspapers have been annexed as Annexure-2 to the impugned order. The learned single Judge has observed in the impugned order that "the report says that the Bar has stated to the said reporter that since after his appointment Justice Garg did not regularly sit in the Court and does not work for more than two hours. The report also says that in the Resolutions passed by the Lawyers, it has been alleged that instead of entitlement of Rs. 5.50 Lakhs, Justice Garg spent more than Rs. 25 Lakhs for renovation of his bungalow. This report is marked Annexure-5." (6) According to the learned single Judge, the contents of the resolution of the High Court Bar Association and the news reported in the aforesaid newspapers are different. The learned single Judge has observed, "....From the above referred Resolutions 1 and 2, it would be clear that the Resolutions were altogether different than what has been further reported by the press. I don't know about the correctness of the reports. I also don't know who is the DNA Reporter, but, in any case, the allegations made against the Court are patently false and do undermine the authority of the Court." (7) The learned single Judge issued notices to the printers, the publishers and the editors of the said newspapers calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be held guilty under the Act and be not awarded appropriate punishment. The said persons were also directed to appear in person and to file their replies. They were also directed to place a copy of the press note which might have been received by them. (8) In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant has approached this court with a prayer that papers of Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 2006 be directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice so that appropriate direction can be given by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Mihir Thakore has appeared for the appellant, whereas learned counsel Shri J.N. Pardiwala has appeared as amicus curiae as, normally, in all matters wherein the High Court of Gujarat is a litigant, Shri Pardiwala represents the High Court.;