- (1.) THERE was no occasion for this Division of the Court to enter ah order in these proceedings but for the fact that the registry has placed before the Court an application No. 30311 of 1996 presented by one Jawahar Ram Gupta and Mirazuddin Jafri, both Upper Division Assistants of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, drawing the Court's attention to certain circumstances narrated in the application supported with an affidavit and seeking, in effect, two prayers from the Court - One prayer is, only for a change in cause title, the other prayer calls upon the Court to proceed. with the matter of the contempt and the writ petition in accordance with law. From where this order will ultimately end, let the Court place on record that the question of proceeding with the contempt proceedings or the case, with the sanctity of the Court proceedings under cloud, at present, does not arise.
(2.) IN this regard the Court refers to but is not repeating its order of 22nd April, 1996. But the Court wonders how a historian will view the situation 100 years from today and where the circumstances will leave the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and whether it will continue to remain as Court of Record. Petty manipulative tactics at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad draw it into a pit forcing it to function without the dignity of the Court of Record. A man on the street, a layman, a young lawyer yet to perceive the concept of a Court of Record, let alone a Superior Court of Record, asks one question.
(3.) THE question is: "can one Division of the High Court issue a writ to another? Can a High Court Judge issue a writ to a High Court Judge, when all are discharging their judicial functions? Can a Division of two or more Judges issue a writ to a Division of two or less Judges? Does the Constitution of India permit this? Can all this happen at a High Court? This cannot happen and must never be permitted to happen. How such a state has come to pass, is the answer which this Court is giving, as it has been called upon do so by the application before the Court, the contents of which are hereinafter reproduced: "1. That in the above matter our Lordships Hon'ble R. S. Dhawan and Hon'ble A. B. Srivastava, JJ. , taking cognizance of contempt on the face of the Court, issued summons to the contemnors on 18-4-96 in attempting to manoeuvere the record of the case and had fixed 22-4-96 for personal appearance of the contemnors in Your Lordship Court. 2. That on 20-4-96 Sri G. K. Verma, Addl. Registrar and Sri T. M. Khan OSD, made an application to Hon'ble Chief Justice at his residence and that on such application moved ex parte and without the record, Hon'ble Chief Justice on 21-4-96,referred the contempt matter to three Hon'ble Judges, to assemble on 22-4-96 at 10. 00 a. m. and that the said Bench assembled on 22-4-96 at 10. 00 a. m. and in an ex parte proceeding without presence of record, issued a writ of prohibition, suspending the order dated 18-4-96 and the proceedings of contempt in Your Lordships Court. 3. That the Counsel representing the aforesaid contemnors, informed a bout the writ of prohibition to Your Lordships Orally and that the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice or the Full Bench, was not communicated on record. 4. That it is respectfully submitted that Hon'ble Chief Justice, had no jurisdiction to transfer a part of the proceedings in a pending and nominated matter, in which day to day hearing was proceeding and contempt notice has been issued, to be transferred to an other Division of the High Court. Such power is unknown to the Rules of the Court and the Constitution of India. 5. That an application was moved before Hon'ble Chief Justice to recall the order, on which after hearing, the orders have been reserved. 6. That in the aforesaid circumstances Your Lordships were pleased to pass a detailed order on 22-4-96, which by itself records the entire proceedings and nothing more be added on record.;