HAKEEM RAHIMULLAH KHAN Vs. SYED SABIR ALIAS SYED MAKHDEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon the presentation of a petition under Sections 2, 12, and 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to this Court, the Registry has raised among others, the following objections. 1. Material papers containing all documents referred to in the petition or affidavit should be filed in triplicate duly stitched in book form, paged indexed and authenticated.

(2.) Batta should be paid for notice to the respondent. 2. The first of these objections is more of form rather than of substance but nonetheless a matter requiring consideration of the Courts for it emphasises the necessity for framing appropriate rules of procedure to govern proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The first objection is really composed of two parts. The first part is that all documents referred to in the petition should be filed as material papers along with the petition and secondly that it should be filed in triplicate, stitched in book form, paged, indexed and authenticated.

(3.) A petition under Sections 2, 12 and 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is an original petitions. No rules have been framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to govern such petitions. However, in respect of proceedings for Contempt of Subordinate Courts and of the High Court, in Chapter XXI of the Original Side Rules of the Madras High Court which are applicable to the proceedings on the original side of this Court there are certain Rules governing contempt proceedings. But there is no rule therein prescribing either the form of the petition or regarding the filing of material papers referred to in the petition. In exercise of the powers conferred on the High Court by Clauses 37 and 38 of the Letters patent, S. 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 225 of the Constitution and S. 32 of the Andhra State Act and all other powers enabling the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to make rules to regulate proceedings for contempts of Subordinate Courts and of the High Court other than proceedings under Order XXI and the Rules of High Court (Madras) 1927, the High Court has framed rules. Even these rules are silent in this behalf. There are no other rules under which the Registry could insist upon the petitioner to file all the orders or documents referred to in the petition. In fact, there is not even a rule requiring the petitioner to file an affidavit in support of the petition. In the absence of any specific rule in this behalf, it is not open for the Registry to return the petition for non-filing of papers referred to in the petition much less can it insist upon filing these material papers in triplicate duly stitched in book form, paged, indexed and authenticated. The High Court Registry can return the petitions only when they are filed not in conformity with the rules governing the filing of such petitions but not on any ground of convenience or inconvenience to the Court. It must, however, be pointed out that if an application for initiating the proceedings in contempt of Subordinate Courts or of the High Court is not supported by the necessary material papers, it would not be possible for the Court to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out so as to direct notice to the respondents. If a party seeks in all seriousness that the Court; more so when the petition itself is not required to be supported by an affidavit of the party. However, in the absence of such a rule requiring filing of such material papers while the office would not be competent to return the papers, the Court may find that there is no sufficient material before it to warrant initiation of proceedings. The registration of such a petition would be inappropriate.