R.K.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) BEFORE deciding the present application for recall of the order dated 14-5-2002 passed by this Court issuing Notice to O.P.S. Malik, it is necessary to state the facts giving rise to the application filed for contempt and the proceedings taken by this Court.
(2.) NARESH Chandra Kapoor, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, who has filed the present petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the alleged violation and disobedience of the order dated 16th March, 1993 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 Naresh Chandra Kapoor v. Smt. Sayeeda Farooqui and others, is the landlord and owner of House No. 12/24 Hastings Road (Nyaya Marg), Allahabad. He had filed a Small Cause Court Suit being SCC Suit No. 19 of 1982 for ejectment of Smt. Sayeeda Farooqui and others. It was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad on 27th April, 1985. Smt. Sayeeda Farooqui filed Revision No. 325 of 1985 before this Court. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 before the Prescribed Authority which was registered as Case No. 113 of 1983 for release of the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. It is alleged that during the pendency of the revision Smt. Sayeeda Farooqui and another person were on a look out to pass on illegal possession of the premises to third persons and contacted O.P.S. Malik, opposite party No. 1. He moved an application for allotment. While the application for allotment was pending the petitioner apprehended that the Prescribed Authority may allot the premises in favour of the opposite party No. 1 as he was an IPS Officer and was holding a very high position in the district being the DIG, CRPF, Allahabad. The petitioner also apprehended that the Prescribed Authority is colluding with the opposite party No. 1. He approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 in which this Court passed the following order on 16th March, 1993: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is asserted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, specially considering the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of B.D. Seth v. Vth Additional City Magistrate and others, reported in 1988 (2) ARC 442, no vacancy could have been deemed to come into existence so as to confer jurisdiction on the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to proceed under Section 16 of the Act. It is further asserted that the date fixed in the case was preponed without any notice to the petitioner. Apart from the normal mode of Service, the petitioner shall serve the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 out of Court, for which purpose, if the requisite steps taken by 22nd March, 1993, the office shall handover necessary notices etc., to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The notices issued shall indicate that the writ petition shall be listed for admission on 19th April, 1993 by which date the said respondents may file a counter affidavit. An affidavit of service shall be filed within 15 days. List this petition for admission on 19th April, 1993. In the meanwhile, the further proceedings consequent upon the order dated 20-2-1993 as well as the order dated 12-3-1993 shall remain stayed till 19th April, 1993.” It is alleged by the petitioner that when he alongwith one of his sons went to serve a certified copy of the order dated 16th March, 1993 passed by this Court upon O.P.S. Malik, opposite party No. 1 and S.N. Pandey, Prescribed Authority, opposite party No. 2 at the residence, the opposite party No. 1 was present at the residence of opposite party No. 2 in Collectorate compound. The opposite party No. 1 took the order and after seeing the same he returned it back to the petitioner with abusive language to the petitioner as welll as the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. The words which were said to have been uttered by O.P.S. Malik and as alleged by the petitioner being reproduced below: “MAIN YEH BUNGALOW CHHODUNGA NAHIN CHAHE JO BHI MUJHE ISAKE LIYE KARNA PADE HIGH COURT KE JUDGE SALE TO ANDHEY HAIN STAY ORDER DENA UNAKE LIYE MAJAK HAI KISAKE KHILAPH ORDER DEY RAHE HAIN YEH BHI NAHIN DEKHATE YEHAN SE BHAG JAO NAHIN TO SALE ANDER KAR DUNGA.”
(3.) THE opposite party No. 2 returned the order after seeing the same and told the petitioner to file the same in Court on the next day. It is also alleged that O.P.S. Malik has also threatened on telephone with dire consequences not only to the petitioner but to his entire family and also abused him. It is also alleged that on 17th March, 1993 when the petitioner went to the Court of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to serve certified copy of the order on 16th March, 1993 passed by this Court, S.N. Pandey, opposite party No. 2 did not come to Court on that date at all. On 18th March, 1993 the petitioner went to serve the copy of the notices, writ petition, etc. upon O.P.S. Malik, opposite party No. 1 alongwith two Advocate witnesses but the opposite party No. 1 refused to accept the notices and copies of the writ petition and application and returned it back to the petitioner. He also entered into the possession of the premises with the help of S.N. Pandey, opposite party No. 2. It is also alleged that S.N. Pandey opposite party No. 2 passed by this Court under the pressure of O.P.S. Malik, opposite party No. 1 allotted the premises in favour of O.P.S. Malik, opposite party No. 1 secretly without giving any hearing to the petitioner. Thus, both the opposite parties have violated the orders passed by this Court on 16th March, 1993 and have intentionally disobeyed the said order, thus, have committed contempt of this Court. In view of these allegations, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing an application under Section 12 of the Act for taking action against the opposite parties for commiting contempt. This Court vide order dated 9th April, 1993 directed the opposite party No. 2, S.N. Pandey, to appear in person with record. The order passed on 9th April, 1993 is reproduced below: ”Opposite Party No. 2 Sri S.N. Pandey is directed to appear in person before this Court and is further directed to place the entire record relating to premises No. 12/24, Nyaya Marg, Allahabad involved in Case No. 100/92 on 27-4-1993. Office is directed to send the notice immediately to the CJM Allahabad for the opposite party and the CJM Allahabad is further directed to serve the notices of this case on Sri S.N. Pandey through the District Magistrate, Allahabad to secure his presence before this Court on 27-4-1993. This case shall remain tied up to me.” ;