Jagannadhadas, C.J. - (1.) These four proceedings arise out of rules issued against certain persons for having committed contempt of this Court by publication of certain news items and articles in newspapers. To elucidate the background of these proceedings, it is necessary to state a few preliminary facts.
(2.) In the month of April, 1951, there were examinations held at Cuttack by the Utkal University for the 'M. B. B. S. degree. These proceedings arise out of examinations for the 1st year M. B.B. S. students. The Board of Examiners submitted their results to the Syndicate on the 21st of April. The Vice- Chancellor of the University had information two days earlier, that is on the 19th April, that some questions in the written paper for the examination in Anatomy of the said 1st M.B.B.S. held on the 9th April, had leaked out. At a meeting of the Syndicate on the 21st April, the inform-mation received about the leakage of the question in the written Anatomy paper was considered by the Syndicate. The Syndicate decided to cancel the results in the Anatomy examination and to have fresh examination in that subject. As against this decision of the Syndicate, the students affected, came up to this Court in 'S.K. GHOSH v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, UTKAL UNIVERSITY M. J. O. No, 80 of 1951 (Orissa) praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the Syndicate to publish the results as sent up by the Board Of Examiners and holding that the cancellation was illegal. This Court by its judgment on that application directed the issue of a writ on the Syndicate of the Utkal University to take immediate steps for the publication of the result of the 1st M. B. B. S. examination held in April 1951, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by para 2 of Law 2 of Chapter XXII and Law 8 of Chapter XXIII of the Statutes of the said University. The order issuing the writ was pronounced on the 9th of August and the writ itself was issued on the 10th of August. The judgement and the reasons for the order dated 9th August were pronounced by the Court. On the 17th of August. It may be mentioned that the Court which heard the application for issue of the writ and disposed of it, consisted of the learned ex-Chief Justice and my learned brother Narasimham, J. On the 17th August that is after the reasons for the judgment were pronounced the Syndicate filed an application in this court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and also an application for stay of operation of the order issuing the writ. The application for stay was moved on the 20th and was rejected. While so rejecting, this Court considering that there was already delay in the Syndicate complying with the peremptory mandatory order of this Court dated 9th August issued on the 10th, gave a further direction that the publication of the results should be done on or before the 23th August, 1951. It also directed that failing the publication the President of the Board of Examiners, be appointed to publish the results on the 24th August 1951. An application was filed to the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal as also against the order of the Court dated the 9th August and the judgment dated the 17th August. The application was moved before the vacation Judge of the Supreme Court on the 23rd August. The prayer for an interim stay was rejected and the petition for special leave and for stay after notice were" both posted for hearing by the Supreme Court on the 4th of September 1951. Meanwhile, the Syndicate published the results on the very same day i.e. the 23rd August as directed by the order of this Court dated the 20th August 1951. Thereafter the application for leave to appeal filed in this Court came up for hearing on the 27th and 28th August. On the later date this Court passed an order adjourning hearing of the petition to the 17th September to await the order of the Supreme Court on the similar application for special leave to appeal pending before it and posted to the 4th of September 1951. The Supreme Court by its order dated the 4th September, granted the special leave but dismissed the application for stay as the results had already been published. This Court thereupon by its order dated the 17th September 1951, closed the petition for leave to appeal pending before it with the note that inasmuch as special leave had already been granted by the Supreme Court, the application before this Court became infructuous.
(3.) The contempt of this Court alleged in these proceedings is, (a) in respect of a item which appeared on the 23rd, of August in two local daifies by name (1) The Eastern Times and (2) The Prajatantra and the same news item which appeared in another local daily by name The Samaj in its issue dated the 25th August and (b) the leaders relating to these proceedings published in the Eastern Times and the Prajatantra in the issues dated the 26th August and the 28th August.;