M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, C.J. - (1.) The history leading to the initiation of the contempt proceedings against K. K. Jha 'Kamal' a lawyer practicing in this Court as well as against his client Ashok Kumar Gupta, the contemners is a checkered one. The details are as follows :- (a) A title suit was filed by the respondent 3 against Ashok Kumar Gupta, the second contemner, the Secretary, Tanzeem-e-Sufia. in the year 1983. Ultimately, this suit was decreed. The said decree was put in execution in Execution Case No. 12 of 1984 in the Court of Sub Judge-I, Giridih, (b) One Ram Lakhan Prasad, an advocate, respondent 2 continued to appear on behalf of the decree-holders. An objection was raised in execution petition on behalf of the said Ashok Kumar Gupta, Secretary that the entire decree and the orders passed in Execution Proceeding was a nullity, because the said Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad did not file any vakalatnama before pleading the case on behalf of the respondent-decree holders. (c) The said objection was disallowed by the Sub Judge I, Girisih and ultimately final order was passed to proceed with the execution. (d) Challenging this order, Ashok Kumar Gupta, the Secretary defendant in the suit, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Giridih being M.A. No. 23 of 2004. (e) The above appeal was heard by the Vth Additional District Judge. Giridh. The matter was argued at length by both the parties. (f) Ultimately, on 21/12/2005, the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Giridh passed a reasoned order holding that Sri Ram Lakhan Prasad was entitled to appear and plead on behalf of the respondent-decree holders and confirmed the orders passed by the Sub Judge. (g) Thereupon the said Ashok Kumar Gupta, the appellant therein chose to file review petition before the same Judge raising the very same point, Again the matter was heard. (h) Ultimately, the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Giridh dismissed the review application through a detailed and elaborate order dated 16/9/2006.
(2.) Strangely, instead of challenging the aforesaid order dated 21/12/2005 in the appeal and the order dated 16/9/2006 passed in review application before appropriate forum, Ashok Kumar Gupta, the second contemner through counsel Mr. K. K. Jha 'Kamal'. the first contemner had chosen to file the writ petition before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India registered as W.P. (C) No. 7126 of 2006 making two prayers :- (i) Seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed in Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 2004 dated 21/12/2005 and the order passed in Review dated 16/9/2006 by Vth Additional District Judge on the ground of mala fide. (ii) Seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Governor of State of Jharkhand to accord sanction for criminal prosecution as against Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the Vth Additional District Judge, Giridih under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the said Judge for the offence under Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the aforesaid orders dated 21/12/2005 and 16/9/2006 were passed by him illegally and against the materials on record.
(3.) This writ petition came up for hearing before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli on 21/12/2006. The learned single Judge found that there are serious allegations made against the Vth Additional District Judge, Giridih who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the writ petition. He further found that the allegation made in the writ petition are not aimed simply to challenge the judgment rendered by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, respondent No. 1 in a dignified and legal manner but rather intended to be used as a pressure tactics to scandalize the Court and undermine the majesty of law. He as well noticed various serious allegations against the judicial officer, who was sought to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code on obtaining the sanction of the Governor under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. K. K. Jha 'Kamal', the counsel for the writ petition Ashok Kumar Gupta argued at length. The learned Single Judge, during the counsel of the hearing asked the learned counsel, Mr. K. K. Jha 'Kamal' 'appearing for the writ petitioner to point out the materials on record to substantiate these allegations made in the writ petition against the judicial officer.;