N.U.Beg, J. - (1.) This is an application Under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The applicant is Dr. Ganga Baksh Singh and the opposite parties are (1) Dr. J. C. Sharma, Principal, National Homeopathic Medical Collage, Lucknow (2) Dr. Daya Nand, Member U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Board, Lucknow and (3) Dr. A. P. Arora, Member, U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Board, Lucknow. The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly stated as follows: On the 7th of February, 1961 an application signed by a number of persons was made to the Registrar, Homeopathic Medicine Board, U. P. Lucknow alleging that Dr. J. C. Sharma, opposite party No. 1 who was principal of the National Homoeopathic College, Lucknow and a member of the Management Board of the said coJIegei, had obtained scholarship from the U. P. Government for higher studies by making certain false representations regarding his qualifications and had also succeeded in securing his post in National Homeopathic College, Lucknow in a similar fashion. On the 25th September, 1962 a general meeting of the U. P. Homeopathic Board was held to consider this matter. In this meeting it was unanimously resolved that a com-mittae consisting of Dr. H. P. Sharma and Dr. S. P. Shukla, members of the Board and a third person possessing administrative or judicial experience be appointed by the Chairman of the. Board Under Section 36 of the U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1951 (Act No. VIII of 1952) read with Section 39 of the same Act, to enquire into thei allegations made against Dr. J. C. Sharma and submit its report to the Board. In accordance with the said resolution, Shri B. N. Chawdhari, a retired District Judge was appointed as a third member of the committee. He acted as the Chairman of the said committee. The, committee started functioning and on the 3rd of January, 1963, it framed charges against Dr. J. C. Sharma, Opposite Party No. 1. In the meantime a new Board had been constituted. On the 7th January, 1963 nine members of the newly constituted Homeopathic Medicine Board made another application Under Section 36 of the U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1951 for a reconsideration of the previous resolution of the Board dated the 25th of September, 1962, on the ground that the said resolution had been passed in a hurried manner.
(2.) On the 18th of January, 1963 Dr. J. C. Sharma, opposite party No. 1 moved a writ petition in this Court (Writ Petition No. 33 of 1963) praying as follows: (a) That a writ of prohibition may b issued to the respondents 3 to 5 (Sri B. N. Choudhari, Dr. H. P. Sharma and Dr. S. P. Shukla) prohibiting them from proceeding with the enquiry against the petitioner. (b) That a writ of certiorari may be issued against the respondents 3 to 5 (Sri B. N. Chowdhari, Dr. H. P. Sharma and Dr. S. P. Shukla) ordering them to produce the charge sheet dated January 3, 1963 and the same may be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. (c) That a writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondent No. 2 (The Chairman' Board of Homeopathic Medicine, U. p., Lucknow) commanding him not to give effect to its resolution No. 18 dated September 25, 1962 and to proceed against the petitioner according to law. It was also prayed that the Inquiry before the committee be stayed. This application was presented before Kailash Prassd, J. who ordered that the writ petition might be put up after 14 days. So far as the prayer for interim stay is concerned the learned Judge refused to grant it. The proceedings before the committee were, therefore, allowed to be continued. On the 20th April, 1963 Dr. A. P. Arora, Opposite Party No. 3 and Dr. Daya Nand, opposite party No. 2, moved a resolution in a meeting of the Board that a new enquiry committee bet appointed from amongst the present members of the Board replacing the previous enquiry committee which consisted of Shri B. N. Chowdhari, Dr. H. P. Sharma and Dr. S. P. Shukla. This resolution was moved by opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 at the instance of Dr. J. C. Sharma, opposite party No. 1. The case of the petitioner is that the above acts of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 constitute contempt of Court punishable Under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1951 Act 32 of 1952).
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length before issuing notice. Having given my earnest consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel, I am not satisfied that there is any substance in this application. An application Under Section 3 of the; Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable in this Court only if the authority the contempt of which is committed is a Court within the meaning of the term as fsed In the said Act The further condition precedent to entertain-ability of such an application is that the Court concerned should be a Court subordinate to the High Court. The first question, therefore, that arises in this case is whether a committee appointed Under Section 36 of the U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1951 to submit its report to the Board is a Court within the meaning of that term as used in the Contempt of Courts Act. Section 36 of the said Act provides as follows: 36 (1). The Board may prohibit the entry In, or order the removal from, the register of the name of any homeopath (a) who has been sentenced by a court in India to imprisonment for an offence declared by the State1 Government to involve -such moral turpitude as would render the entry or continuance of his name in the register undesirable, or (b) whom the Board or a Committee specially authorized for the purpose after enquiry (at which opportunity has been given to him to be heard in his defence and to appear either in person or by counsel, vakil, pleader or attorney, and which may in the discretion of the Board, be held in camera) has found guilty of professional misconduct or other infamous conduct by a majority of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting at the meeting. (2) The Board may direct that the name of any person against whom an order has been made under Sub-section (1) shall be entered or re-entered, as the case may be, after having satisfied itself that due to lapse of time or otherwise disability mentioned in Sub-section (1) above has ceased to have any force. The above provision makes it quite clear that the function of the committee which in the present case was appointed Under Section 36(1)(b) of the U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Act was merely to make an enquiry into the conduct of opposite party No. 1 and submit its report to the Board. After the said report is submitted to the Board, it is open to the Board to direct that the name of any person against whom the report has been submitted be removed from the register of homeopaths maintained by the1 Board. It is, therefore, obvious that the committee appointed Under Section 36 (1)(b) of the, U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Act, is merely in the nature of a fact finding commission which is entrusted with the task of making investigation into questions at issue and submitting its conclusions thereon before the Board in order to enable the Board to take such further action in the matter of the preservation or removal of the name of the person concerned as it considers proper in the circumstances of the case. No doubt, when giving these findings, the committee would be performing certain functions which are analogous to that of a Court. They, however, would not have the effect of converting such a committee into a Court as envisaged in Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act.;