Court No. - 27 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 4035 of 2010 Petitioner :- Nar Mahadur Shashi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Colletor Lucknow And Others Petitioner Counsel :- J.N.Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S.Pawar Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
In pursuance to order passed by this Court Shri Nar Bahadur Sahi petitioner is
present in person whose identity has been verified by Shri J.N. Mishra. Shri
Nar Bahadur Sahi do not wants to file response.
Shri J.N.Mishra filed affidavit and tendered unconditional apology for filing
writ petition for the same cause of action without disclosing earlier one.
The petitioner has taken housing loan from the respondent no. 3. On account
of default of payment of dues recovery proceeding has been initiated by
serving impugned notice.
Writ petition no. 3541(MB) of 2008 was filed by the petitioner in which Shri
J.N.Mishra himself was a counsel for the same cause of action. Writ petition
was disposed of finally by judgment and order dated 5.11.2008 permitting the
petitioner to pay the entire dues in five equal quarterly installment and first
installment shall fall dues in the month of June 2009.
It appears that petitioner has not paid dues in terms of order dated 5.11.2008.
Instead of complying with the earlier judgment the petitioner had filed another
writ petition numbered as Writ petition 3507 (MB) 2009 which was dismissed
by judgment and order dated 15.4.2009 on the ground that for the same cause
of action another writ petition is not maintainable. However, this Court had
sympathetically after considering the petitioner’s case permitted the petitioner
to pay the dues in pursuance to demand letter dated 12.1.2009. Now instead
of complying with the earlier order and depositing the dues the petitioner had
filed the present writ petition against the impugned demand notice. While
approaching this court the petitioner has not disclosed the fact about filing of
earlier writ petition. Notices were sent to the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for preferring the present writ petition who are present in person.
So far as learned counsel Shri J.N.Mishra is concerned he has filed personal
affidavit tendering unconditional apology for lapses on his part. Petitioner
submits that he does not want to contest the case. At the face of record
petitioner had sworn false affidavit.
In the case of Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 3
SCC 757, (Para 38) Hon’ble Supreme court has held that any conduct which
has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due
course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal
contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has
the tendency of causing obstructions in the due process of judicial
proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with
the administration of justice.
In view of above, it is a fit case where petitioner should be prosecuted for
committing contempt. Let a notice be issued to the petitioner along with
present order as to why he may not be tried and punished for committing ex
facie contempt on account of filing of false affidavit and concealment of fact.
Petitioner may submit response by tomorrow. He shall appear on 12.7.2010
at 2.00 pm. Since, petitioner has not engaged any counsel Shri J.N.Mishra
shall inform him the order passed by this Court. So far as apology tendered
by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned it shall be considered on the
next date.
Notice shall be served during the course of day to the petitioner who shall
remain in Court up to 4.30 p.m.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010
Madhu