- (1.) PETITIONER-APPLICANT had filed Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 58016 of 2008, wherein this Court on 14. 11. 2008 passed following order: "1]. Heard Mr. V. K. Dwivedi, in support of this writ petition. Mr. M. S. Pipersenia, learned Standing /counsel for the State of U. P. appears for the respondents 1 to 3. 2]. The grievance in the petition is that some Government doctors, whose names are mentioned in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, are permitted to stay in Kanpur for over 10 years whaich is against the government policy. We do not propose to interfere and pass any order, though we are of the view that the Director General Medical and Health Services, should look into this grievance and take necessary action. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that these doctors are managing to remain in Kanpur and, in fact, they are otherwise indulging in private practice. we expect appropriate corrective steps to be taken by the Director General,medical and Health Services, if there is any substance in the submission of the petitioner. 3]. The writ petition is disposed of. "
(2.) THE petitioner-applicant's contention is that certified copy of the afore-quoted order was served on Sri Ishwar Saran Srivastava, Director General Medical and Health Services, U. P. at Lucknow on 18. 11. 2008, but till date no steps have been undertaken and the order passed by this Court has been flouted. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Three Cheers Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. CESC Ltd. AIR SCW 2008 7951, has taken the view that purpose and object of contempt proceeding is only to see that order of court is complied with and not unnecessarily proceed against persons, as if they are ordinary petty criminals and for initiation of contempt proceeding, there has to be willful disobedience or contumacious conduct on the part of alleged contemnor. Relevant extract is being quoted below: "contempt of Court is a matter which deserves to be dealt with all seriousness. In Mriityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahman and Ors. (Ors) (2001) 3 SCC739, this Court held: "13. Before, however, proceeding with the matter any further, be it noted that exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious and use of it rather sparingly after addressing itself to be true effect of the contemptuous conduct. The Court must otherwise come to a conclusion that the conduct complained of tantamounts to obstruction of justice which if allowed would even permeate in our society (vide Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia ). This is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the law Courts to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction the majesty of law. "
(3.) IN Chhotu Ram v. Urbashi Gulati and Anr. (2001) 7 SCC 530, this Court held that a contempt of Court proceeding being quasi criminal in nature, the burden to prove would be upon the person who made such an allegation. A person cannot be sentenced on mere probability. Wilful disobedience and contumacious conduct is the basis on which a contemnor can be punished. Such a finding cannot be arrived at on ipsi dixit of the Court. It must be arrived at on the materials brought on record by the parties. Yet again in Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. (2002) (4) SCC 21, it was opined: "15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1971 - the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation - the act o acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise. " In Dr. Prodip Kumar Biswas v. Subrata Das and Ors (2004) (4) SCC 573, after noticing various provisions of the Calcutta High Court Rules held: "the Court may, however, in a contempt proceeding take such evidence as may be considered necessary. Admittedly,the rule nisi was not drawn up. In fact, it seems that neither ways any notice of contempt issued to the appellant nor any hearing took place except what has been noticed hereinbefore. The contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. this jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the Courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law: (See Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India)" Recently in Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kar (Retd.) (2008) (7) SCALE 484), this Court held: "it is a well settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible of the order which is ambiguous, a contempt proceeding would be maintainable. " it was furthermore opined that the effect and purport of the order should be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. ";