A.S.BAINS, J. - (1.) SARDAR Parkash Singh Badal, respondent (contemner) filed Civil Petition No. 3803 of 1983, in which the State of Haryana, Shri Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister Haryana, Shri Ishwar Chander, Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Haryana and others were respondents. In the aforesaid writ petition, the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeal) dated 27th August, 1982, was impugned along with the orders dated 8th August 1980 and 19th December 1980 passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, Hissar Division respectively, inter alia, on the following allegations :- (i) That the order of the Collector, respondent No. 5 dated 8.8.1980 (Annexure P-1) of the Commissioner (respondent No. 4 dated 19.12.1980 (Annexure P-3) and that of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), dated 27.8.1982 (Annexure P.5) are apparently erroneous, illegal, arbitrary and have been passed mala fidely at the instance of Shri Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister Haryana-Respondent No. 3. (ii) Orders of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have been passed mala fide at the instance of Shri Bhajan Lal, who defected from the Janata party in 1980 and joined Congress (I). The petitioner is on opposition party of Congress (I) and Shri Bhajan Lal respondent No. 3 is responsible for the mala fide orders passed by respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 5." The Advocate-General, Haryana, on the basis of the above allegations filed the present contempt petition against the respondent that the aforesaid averments made in the writ petition tantamount to contempt of Court as Shri Ishwar Chander, Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Haryana is a Court as contemplated by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Article 215 of Constitution of India.
(2.) NOTICE was issued in this case to the respondent on 18th October, 1982. The respondent has also filed the return, in which it is averred that the answering respondent did not use any expression scandalise, or to lower the authority of any court or to prejudice the due course of any judicial proceedings and that the aforesaid allegations in the writ petition are fully protected under sections 5 and 6 of the Act, because the same are made in good faith. The only question for determination is whether the aforesaid allegations made in the writ petition amount to contempt of the court or made in good faith.
(3.) IN the writ petition, it is averred that the Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa declared 627 kanals 3 marlas of 'C' category of land with the respondent as surplus on 8th August, 1980 vide his order Annexure P-1; that the respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Collector before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, which was dismissed in limine by him on 19th December, 1980 (copy Annexure P.3 to the writ petition); that the respondent filed a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Haryana on 27th August, 1982 (copy Annexure P-5 to the writ petition). The respondent also alleged in para 4 of the writ petition that the orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) are apparently erroneous, illegal, arbitrary and have been passed mala fide at the instance of Shri Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister Haryana (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition). Separate returns were filed by Ch. Bhajan Lal, respondent No. 3 himself and by respondent No. 5 on behalf of other respondents including Shri Ishwar Chander, Financial Commissioner (Appeals). Ch. Bhajan Lal in reply to the allegations in para 4 of the writ petition has averred as under :- "The allegations in para 4 of the amended writ petition against the answering respondent No. 3 by petitioner are correct to the extent that the petitioner was the Chief Minister of Punjab and is now Leader of the Opposition of Punjab Vidhan Sabha. It is also correct that the election of the Legislative Assembly, Haryana were held on May 19, 1982. The answering respondent had no knowledge that the petitioner visited several constituencies in Haryana in favour of the opposition candidates, so the question of answering respondent being annoyed with the petitioner "due to the defeat of certain Congress (I) candidates does not arise. It is wholly wrong to suggest that the answering respondent illegally invited to form a ministry by the Governor of Haryana. In fact the answering respondent was unanimously elected leader of the Congress (I) Legislative Party and in his capacity as leader of the said party, the largest single party in the Haryana Legislature, the Governor of Haryana acted in a lawful and constitutional manner, to invite the answering respondent to form the ministry. Further, the answering respondent proved and fully established his majority on the floor of the Vidhan Sabha. As regard the news-items appearing in the Tribune of June 23, 1982, the answering respondent has no comments except that he did not feel any annoyance nor is he aggrieved against the petitioner. It is further submitted that his installation as Chief Minister of Haryana is legally and constitutionally valid. It is also wrong to suggest that the orders of the Collector, Sirsa, Commissioner, Hissar Division and Financial Commissioner (Appeals) were passed at the instance of the answering respondent. It is also incorrect to suggest that any application for vacation of stay "order was filed at his instance. He was not aware of any such application having been filed on behalf of the State." No reply of the writ petition was filed by Ishwar Chander himself and in the return filed by respondent No. 5, the allegations of mala fide and the orders having been passed at the instance Ch. Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana, are denied.;