- (1.) On account of a serious disquieting feature in relation to an order passed by this Court, this Court took suo motu cognizance and issued notice as to why the persons involved, should not be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Pursuant to the notice issued, show cause, being one of denial, it necessitated an inquiry and the inquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who on the basis of evidence led before him, has submitted a Report. After getting the said Report, objections were filed on behalf of contemnors and they have been heard at length being represented by their respective counsel.
(2.) The State of Maharashtra, introduced a course in Physical Education called C.P.Ed. Course. A person acquiring the said diploma would be eligible for being considered for the post of a Physical Instructor in the schools. In the recent past, there has been a mushroom growth of private institutions and the founders of such institutions make huge sum of money by admitting students from different parts of the country and by conferring degree or diploma on then. But every such institution requires permission of the concerned State Government as well as the affiliation to any University, failing which the so-called diploma/degree from the institution will be of no use. One such institution with which we are concerned in the present case is Lokmata Indira Gandhi College of Sports, Yavatmal. The institution use to run by late Savitribai Sikshan Prasarak Mandal, Yavatmal (for short referred to as 'the K.S.S.P. Mandal'). The Government of Maharashtra did not grant permission to the institution for the academic year 1994-95 but the institution admitted several students and then persuaded the Government for grant of permission. At later stage, the Government did grant the permission for the academic year 1994-95, so that the students who have already studied in the institution could appear in the examination. An examination was conducted in the year 1996 but many of the students could not appear in the said examination, allegedly because of lack of proper information. K.S.S.P. Madal, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Nagpur High Court for a direction that the remaining students who have already studied for the academic session 1994-95, should be permitted to appear at the examination to be held by the appropriate authority. That application, however was withdrawn by the counsel appearing for the Mandal, as indicated in the order of the Court dated 21-3-1997. A fresh writ petition was filed in the Nagpur High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1005/97, entitled C.P.Ed. Vidhyarthi Sangh through Bineet Kumar Singh. That writ petition was also dismissed on 26-8-1997. An application for review was filed in the High Court, which was registered as Review Petition No. M.C.A. 225/97 and that application stood disposed of by order dated 23rd October, 1997. The said order stipulates that if the examination is held in future by the State of Maharashtra, then all such students who were the ex-students in the C.P.Ed. Course and who had missed their examination for any cause, would be allowed to appear in the examination and the relief would not be restricted only to those, who have approached the Court, but to the entire student community. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, as no examination was held, a fresh writ petition was filed in the year 1998, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1621/98. This writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court on 8th July, 1998. Against the said order of the High Court dated 8th July, 1998, a special leave petition was filed in this Court and that special leave petition was dismissed by order dated 28th of August, 1998. In view of the dismissal of the special leave petition, the so-called students of Mandal, would not get any chance of appearing at any future examination. But an order purported to have been passed on 28-8-1998, was sent to the State of Maharashtra, which indicates that while dismissing the special leave petition, this Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to conduct the examination for the year 1994-95, as per the student list submitted by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1621/98 immediately. The exact order which was sent to the State Government for appropriate action, purported to have been passed by this Court on 28-8-98 reads thus : "R No. 1 and 2 are directed to conduct the exams. for the year 1994-95 as per student list Annex. 8 and 9 submitted by petitioner's in W.P. No. 1621/98 immediately. C.F. required from institutions. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed." The State of Maharashtra, thereafter filed an application on 20th of February, 1999, indicating the aforesaid act of forgery committed by somebody and on the basis of the said forged order, the institution had been compelling the State of Maharashtra to hold an examination for those students, list of which had been appended as Annexures 8 and 9 to the Writ Petition No. 1621/98. When the aforesaid Interlocutory Application was listed before the Court, notice had been issued and after getting the reply from the persons concerned, the Inquiry had been directed as already stated, pursuant to which the inquiry was made and the Report in question has been submitted. The Inquiring Officer, after elaborate discussion of materials before him, came to the conclusion that Shri Bineet Kumar Singh cannot be held in any way responsible for the alleged forgery of the order of this Court dated 28-8-98, but so far as the two other persons are concerned, namely Mrs. Megha Rude and Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund, the Inquiring Officer unequivocally came to the conclusion that they must be held responsible for this untoward incidence and even though, it has not been established that they committed the forgery in question by inserting and interpolating on the orders of this Court but they were fully aware of the orders of this Court, dismissing the special leave petition and yet they have transmitted the so-called forged orders to the State of Maharashtra, seeking relief for the students of the institution on the basis of the said forged order.
(3.) Mr. A. K. Sanghi, appearing for Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund, contended that the fabrication and manipulation of an order of the Court, undoubtedly is a very serious charge, but even though said Dilip Wamanrao Gund has been found to have approached the Advocate Mr. Palshikar and then came to Delhi and was present in Court on the date, the special leave petition was dismissed but it has not been established that he played any role in forging the order of the Court and further, he cannot be said to have been benefited in any way by the so-called forged order. Consequently, it would be difficult to say with definiteness that he had played any role in getting the order of the Court forged and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty of Contempt of Court. Mr. Sanghi further submitted that in a case like this, it would be more appropriate to lodge a complaint, so that the matter can be deeply investigated into by a competent investigating agency like C.B.I. and those who are guilty, should be suitably punished, which would have a deterrent effect. Mr. Sanghi also commented that in the course of inquiry that had been conducted by the Registrar, the students who can be said to be beneficiaries, mentioned in Annexures 8 and 9, ought to have been examined, which would have unveiled the truth and such non-examination must be viewed seriously.;