- (1.) T:- The appeal relates to selection of trustees to Madrasathul Salalhi Fir Adrabail Kilhai (hereinafter referred to as the Trust). The said Trust was founded in the year 1980. After the death of the founders, disputes arose. A scheme was framed by the Court and the administration of Trust was carried on in accordance with the Scheme. Decree modified from time to time. For the administration of the Trust six hereditary trustees are to be selected from three main branches of the founders, two from each branch. Besides, non-hereditary trustees are to be selected by the District Judge of West Thanjavur. In all, there are to be nine trustees. The correctness of the selection ultimately reached this Court. By an order dated 18-9-1991, it was directed that the then trustees could continue up to 31st May, 1992. Thereafter a new set of trustees was to be appointed by proper advertisement in the newspapers inviting applications. If any objection was made to any one of the trustees, the High Court was directed to look into the same. Pursuant to that order of this Court the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur called for applications. By his order dated 25-9-1992 he selected respondents 1 to 6 as hereditary trustees and nominated respondents 7 to 9 as non-hereditary trustees of the Trust. A revision was preferred challenging the selection. The High Court on an elaborate consideration of the matter, by a judgment dated 27-11-1992 found no ground to interfere with the order of the District Judge. Against the said judgment the present special leave petition was filed. On 16-8-1993, this Court passed the following order : "We have heard learned counsel. The proceedings before this Court is a special leave petition arising out of the order of the Madras High Court dated 27-11-1992 in C.R.P. No. 2719 of 1992. The proceedings in the High Court, in turn, were directed against the order dated 25th September, 1992 in O.S. No. 6 of 1970 on the file of the District judge, West Thanjavur in the matter of appointment of trustees to Mathurastul Salahi Fi Adrabil Falahi Trust. 2. In the course of the proceedings in the special leave petition by the order dated 15th April, 1993, this Court reconstituted the Board of Trustees pending disposal of the special leave petition. The nominations of respondents 3, 7 and 8 namely S/Shri A. M. Naina Mohd. Thambi, M.M.S. Abdul Wahab and M.A.H. Mohideen respectively were kept out for the time being and respondents 1,2,4,5,6 and 9 namely S/Sri M. S. Tajudeen, N. Abubacker, Dr. M. S. Mohd. Meeran Saheb along with Justice Khalid, who was requested to be the Chairman of the Board, were nominated on the Board of Trustees. 3. The point to note and emphasise here is that the entire matter of the constitution of the Board was seized of and binding decision before this Court and no other Court had any jurisdiction or business to interfere with the cause of the matter pending before this Court. In spite of this clear position, Sri K. S. Abdul Shukoor, Respondent No. 5 in this special leave petition moved - and what is disturbing to us is that the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur entertained - an application, I.A. No. 135/1993 in O.S. 6/70 before the District Judge for removal of respondent No. 4 herein, A. M. Shamshudeen, Secretary of the Board of Trustees. The said A. M. Shamshudeen was arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the application moved before the District Judge, West Thanjavur. The District Judge, we are constrained to say, did not reflect any thought on the propriety of entertaining the said application and of issuing the notice on the application including to Justice Khalid. Justice Khalid was appointed by this Court as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for and during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court. he was not a party to any proceedings and was functioning on the directions of this Court. But, unfortunately, the District Judge allowed the said Abdul Shukoor to implead Justice V. Khalid as co nomine party to the application and the learned District Judge took the extraordinary step of issuing notice to Sri Justice Khalid. Justice Khalid was understandably disturbed by this development and has now offered to quit his assignment. 4. The conduct of K. S. Abdul Shukoor, respondent No. 5 herein, in moving the District Court while the proceedings were pending here, amounts to an attempt directly to interfere with the proceedings before this Court, besides being wholly improper. Impleading Justice Khalid as co nomine a party-respondent to the application is again a matter of serious impropriety. This kind of litigious adventurism to thwart the proceedings of this Court and embarrass the Chairman nominated by this Court and an attempt to thwart the functioning of A. M. Shamshudeen who is functioning in terms of the orders of this Court should be put down. We direct that the proceedings for contempt be initiated against respondent No. 5, K. S. Abdul Shukoor. Notice will go to him directing his personal presence in this Court on 20th September, 1993 to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of Court. 5. We also direct the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur to submit his explanation why he entertained the application before him and directed notice thereon and, in particular, to Justice Khalid. We see from the application itself that K. S. Abdul Shukoor has referred to the proceedings of this Court. It was the duty of the learned District Judge to ensure that he was not, by allowing parallel proceedings in his Court, interfering directly with matters which this Court alone was seized of. We direct the learned District Judge to submit his explanation which should reach this Court before 20th September, 1993. Whether any further action should be initiated against the learned District judge would be considered after consideration of his explanation. Copy of the order dated 15th April, 1993 and a copy of the report dated 2nd August, 1993 submitted by Justice Khalid will be sent to the District Judge to enable him to submit a prompt and proper explanation. 6. We also direct that all further proceedings in the application I.A. 135 of 1993 in O.S. 6/70, moved by K. S. Abdul Shukoor before the District Judge, West Thanjavur shall remain stayed. The District judge shall forthwith upon receipt of this order, delete the name of Justice Khalid in the said application and cause the notice issued to justice Khalid in these proceedings, to be withdrawn at once. 7. We also direct that until further orders till respondent No. 5 purges himself of contempt, he shall not function on the Board of Trustees. 8. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court of Madras to ensure compliance with the directions in Para 5 of this order. List on 20th September, 1993."
(2.) As regards respondent No. 5, K.S. Abdul Shukoor, by an order dated 20th September, 1993 it was inter alia held thus : "However, on a consideration of the matter, we are left with the impression that the contemner did not act with any innocent motives when he moved the District Judge with his interlocutory application, impleading thereto Justice Khalid and making removal of one of the trustees selected by this Court to act on the Board of Trustees during the pendency of the special leave petition here. In these circumstances, the interference is inescapable that the contemner intended to and did interfere with the course of justice. We accordingly convict him of the offence for the contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. So far as the sentence is concerned we think it should serve as a deterrent to like-minded persons, in this case we should, in view of the submissions of Mrs. Kumaramangalam, show some consideration. We sentence the contemner to imprisonment till rising of the Court and impose a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The fine shall be paid within four weeks from today.
(3.) On 8-10-1993 this Court directed as follows: "Special leave granted. However, the matter will be listed after two weeks to consider the acceptability or otherwise of the explanation tendered by the learned District Judge. Except for that, the appeal is disposed of finally.";