- (1.) This appeal under S. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been preferred by C. P. Singh posted as the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the Jaipur Branch of Rajasthan High Court against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21-4-1992 holding him to be guilty of contempt of this Court's in order dated 10/03/1992.
(2.) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1500/81 T. C. Jain v. Rajasthan Housing Board was listed for hearing before Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. C. Kochhar on 10/03/1992. On that date learned Judge passed the order for listing it along with S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1953/81. Both the writ petitions were listed on 23/03/1992 before Mr. Justice M. R. Calla, J. but they did not reach hence were not taken up. As per order dated 10/03/1992 both the writ petitions should have been listed together again on the next date but on 8/04/1992 W.P. No. 1500/81 was listed before Hon'ble Mr. N. C. Sharma J. whereas W.P. No. 1953/81 was listed before Hon'ble Mr. V. K. Singhal, J. Writ Petition No. 1953/81 listed before Hon'ble Mr. V. K. Singhal, J. was heard and reserved on that date whereas W.P. No. 1500/81 could not be taken up. On the next date when W.P. No. 1500/81 was listed before Hon'ble Mr. Sharma, J. he found that the order dated 10/03/1992 has not complied with as W.P. No. 1953/81 was listed in isolation and was heard by Hon'ble Mr. Singhal, J. on 8/04/1992.
(3.) Finding that C. P. Singh, Dy. Registrar was guilty of contempt Hon'ble Mr. Sharma, J. issued a notice to him for explaining as to why action was not taken against him for non compliance of the Court's order dated 10/03/1992. C. P. Singh, Dy. Registrar, submitted his explanation pointing out that the work of listing cases had been assigned to the Asstt. Registrar and that he did not flout the Court's order. For the mistake alleged he, however, rendered unconditional apology. This apology was accepted and the following order was passed : "While holding him guilty of contempt, I accept the unconditional apology, rendered by him, and on account of that I purge the contempt." Even an apology tendered after committing contempt does not justify its acceptance as observed by the Supreme Court in L. D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. (1984 3 SCC 405. However, the question in this appeal is whether C. P. Singh, Dy. Registrar be held guilty of contempt ? The contempt power is discretionary. By the order dated 10/03/1992 the learned Judge wanted that W.P. No. 1500/81 be listed along with W.P. No. 1953/81. That order was complied with and both the writ petitions were listed together before Hon'ble Mr. M. R. Calla, J. on 23/03/1992 but they were not taken up. On the next date they should have been listed together but unfortunately it did not happen. For this act C. P. Singh has been held guilty of contempt by the learned Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that when the order dated 10/03/1992 had been complied with by listing both the cases on 23/03/1992 and the work of listing under. directions issued was with the Asstt. Registrar the appellant could not be punished for contempt. That submission is well founded.;