- (1.) M. L. S. Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Reewan (Sandalpur). District Kanpur Dehat was established by a Committee duly constituted under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The society has been obtaining renewal from the Assistant Registrar from time to time. Ram Autar Shukla while working as a Manager of the institution, the term of the office of the Committee was to be renewed for 5 years from 5/10/1990. There was a dispute as to who will represent the society. The petitioner Ram Autar claimed that he was duly elected as a Manager of the Committee and he was entitled to make an application for renewal, while the case of the respondent was that he was entitled to represent the society as a Manager, Admittedly, the respondent made an application and had obtained orders from the Assistant Registrar for his functioning as a Manager. The District Inspector of Schools on 8/5/1991 recognised the petitioner as a Manager of the Committee and approved the list of office-bearers. The Assistant Registrar issued show-cause notice to therespondent, on an application made by the petitioner, that the respondent had traudulently fabricated the records and obtained the order. After service of the show-cause notice on 19-2-1991, though the respondent sought time to file the counter, even after the dale was given for filing an affidavit, it would appear that he did not do the same nor has given an explanation. Therefore, the Assistant Registrar passed an order on 23/2/1991 cancelling the certificate dated 12/10/1990 recognising the respondent as a Manager. He recorded the finding that the renewal was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation of facts. On appeal filed by respondent, it was ultimately confirmed by the Commissioner by his proceedings dated 16/9/1991. The Writ Petition No. 2111 of 1991 filed by the respondent was allowed by the High court of Allahabad and the orders quashed. The petitioner filed the above Special Leave Petition impeding the officials and the respondents as No. 3 in the SLP. After issuing notice on 2/12/1991 and hearing both the counsel, this court by order dated 11/5/1992, stayed the operation of the judgment of the High court. On 24/1 1/1992 when it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was not allowed to function pursuant to the orders passed by this court on 11/5/1992, due to an order dated 6/6/1992 cancelling the order of stay dated 1 1/5/1992, a bench of three Judges consisting of us and Brother Justice V. Ramaswami prima facie found that the order dated 9/6/1992 was a forged document for the reason that neither Justice T. K. Thommen nor Justice K. J. Reddy who were parties to the original order of stay, were the vacation Judges. Therefore, the cancellation order of the stay by the same learned Judges on 9/6/1992 would not arise. Accordingly while confirming the order of stay made by this court dated 1 1/5/1992, we directed the functionaries to permit the petitioner to continue as a Manager and directed the Registrar General to hold an enquiry as to who had committed the forgery of the order dated 9/6/1992. The Registrar confirmed in his proceeding dated 19-1-1993 that the order dated 9/6/1992 was a forged order and there is a conflict as to who had committed the forgery. Therefore, he reported and sought for directions that "in view of the directions of the Hon'ble court dated 24/11/1992 for such action as the court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case". Thereafter we called for the records and notice was issued to the respondents. We directed the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat to be present pursuant to which she was present and produced the records and she was also directed to file an affidavit.
(2.) In the affidavit filed by the respondent he stated "that the answering respondent has no knowledge of the order dated 9/6/1992 allegedly passed by this Hon'ble court. He has neither filed the said order before the District Inspector of Schools nor he fabricated the signature of the petitioner in accompanying application" etc. Smt Ramsia Avasti, the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat, on the basis of the affidavits of Rameshwar and Puttanlai, had stated thus: "the stay order dated 9/6/1992 in Special Leave Petition No. 17524 of 1991 was filed by one Shri Arvind Shukia who told his name as Ram Autar Shukia. Later on he came to know that the name of that person was Arvind Shukia and not Ram Autar Shukia. He further stated that he (Arvind Shukia) used to tell his name as Ram Autar Shukia. " To the same effect Rameshwar who was working as Daftary as on the relevant date and Puttanlai who was working as a Class IV employee as on that date have stated that the respondentdelivered that order in their office impersonating as Ram Autar Shukla but later they came to know that he is Arvind Shukia. The respondent filed his reply denying those allegations. On 9/8/1994 we passed the following order "That it is established from the record that the alleged interim order of this court dated 9/6/1992 is forged. It is also established that the said order was produced before the District Inspector of Schools by Arvind Shukia. By producing the said order, Mr Shukia wanted to gain an advantage. Mr Shukia is, therefore, guilty of forging the order and producing it before the District inspector of Schools. There are two courses open to us i. e. either to file a complaint under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code or to initiate contempt proceedings against Mr Shukia. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, we should initiate contempt proceedings against him. We issue show-cause notice to Mr Shukia as to why he be not held guilty of contempt of court and be suitably punished. He may file his reply within six weeks to be listed on 4/10/1994. "pursuant to that notice, he filed the affidavit. Therein, while reiterating that he did not commit forgery nor did he produce the forged order of this court, he stated that he tenders unconditional apology. He is the breadwinner of the family. His conviction for contempt would render his aged parents, two minor sons and his housewife destitute.
(3.) From the record, it is clear that this court passed the order on 1 1/5/1992 after hearing both parties suspending the operation of the order of the High court. On 9/6/1992 during summer vacation, an order was purported to have been passed by the same learned Judges cancelling the order dated 11/5/1992. In the affidavit initially filed by the respondent he stated that the petitioner had fabricated the order and he was not to gain anything by fabricating the document or producing the forged document for the reason that subsequently this court passed an order directing the authorities to permit the petitioner to continue to function as a Manager. He also alleged prevarication by the subordinates, Rameshwar and Puttanlal, Class IV employees. It would be clear that they are playing the game according to the exigencies. Initially they stated in the affidavits filed in support of the respondent that Ram Autar Shukia produced the order dated 9/6/1992 and later they categorically stated in the sworn statements before this court that it was the respondent Arvind Shukia who produced the order dated 9/6/1992 before them and impersonated to be the petitioner. Yet in third affidavits they stated that the above statement was not correct. Be that as it may, the circumstances clearly point to the unerring conclusion that the respondent with the connivance of one of the staff in the Registry, obtained the blank printed format and forged the order dated 9/6/1992 impersonated as petitioner and produced it in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner having obtained the stay of the operation of the order of the High court on 11/5/1992, cannot be expected to produce an order purported to be dated 9/6/1992 cancelling the order dated 11/5/1992. In fact, the language of the order shows that it is not court language. The respondent initially obtained an order from the Assistant Registrar recognising him to be the Manager which was later cancelled on the findings that it was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. When he challenged that order as confirmed ultimately by the Commission, at his instance, he had it quashed bythe High court which was suspended by this court. Who would stand to gain by vacating the order dated 11/5/1992. The inevitable conclusion would be that it is the respondent who stands to gain and not the petitioner. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent that it was the petitioner who had fabricated the order dated 9/6/1992 and had produced it before the District Inspector of Schools is an obvious absurdity and too credulous to believe. Therefore, the affidavits of Rarneshwar and Puttanlal that it was the respondent who produced the order dated 9/6/1992 before them impersonating to be the petitioner is consistent with the circumstances and would be acceptable to us. We accordingly confirm our prima facie conclusion in our show-cause notice and hold that the respondent obviously forged the order of this Court and produced it in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat impersonating to be the petitioner to have him reinducted as a Manager of the school.;